[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

[Steve Bertrand]

> i suspect the hoarding will be an unfortunate sideeffect of the /32 v6
> allocation size.  sort of like the hoarding done by those unfortunate
> souls who only needed 6 v4 addresses but were "forced" to take more (a
> /24 if they were lucky, a /20
> if they were not) by their address registry.
>
> its not exactly fair to force people to take more addresses than they
>  need and then berate them for hoarding... is it?

Interesting insight.

I, operating a small ISP as others here, directly requested a smaller
than /32 IPv6 block, because I knew that we would almost certainly
never need it, but it was forced upon us anyway.

Receiving such a large address space makes it very difficult in the
justification side of things (some would have no choice but to lie on
the application, just to get ANY IPv6 addresses). I only received the
allocation because of the designation that I have (ISP). Yes, we
provide Internet services, but in terms of size, I'm no where near
even that of 'enterprise'. I'll never use the IP's, so apparently,
I'll be hoarding them.

In regard to Bill's second statement above, it sounds like a lot of
people are doing exactly this (damning them as hoarders) for legacy
IPv4 holders...doesn't it? When push comes to shove, why would one
give up what was given to them, especially when they vehemently tried
to state it wasn't warranted/needed. (I know this is going OT, but an
opinion would be nice)

Although we (the small SP's) have signed a v6 RSA, are we going to get
the same ridicule and harassment in the future that the Legacy IPv4
folk are seeing today?

If this is the case, then I feel for the legacy folk. I explicitly
tried to get a smaller chunk of the IPv6 pie, but alas, the request
was futile. I understand that the routing table growth is the failing
point of v6, so I know *why* I have such a large space, but it is
really upsetting when people are already using the word 'hoarding'
when some of us can not get a space suitable for our size, but receive
something that is exponentially beyond the scope of comprehension, let
alone above suitable.

Steve