This policy limits the maximum size of assignments even in the case where they might be justified by the addressing plan being requested.

In addition, it seems senseless to request documentation/justification to make additional assignments from contiguous blocks.

This proposal seeks to modify the text so that these considerations will be consistent with actual IPv6 usage.

This policy limits the maximum size of assignments even in the case where they might be justified by the addressing plan being requested.

In addition, it seems senseless to request documentation/justification to make additional assignments from contiguous blocks.

This proposal seeks to modify the text so that these considerations will be consistent with actual IPv6 usage.

In addition, the current text of the policy contains an error, as it requests documentation/justification for subsequent assignments (or at least that is the intention), yet the language gives the impression that the documentation/justification is required for such assignments to be made from a contiguous block.

An addressing plan is enough to justify the space, while placing limitations on actual needs makes no sense.

As for subsequent assignments, it is assumed that LACNIC's default, usual practice is to reserve space adjacent to any assignment so that subsequent assignments will not require another announcement and thus a single aggregate prefix can be announced. In view of this, it appears senseless to include this text in the policy.

An addressing plan is enough to justify the space, while placing limitations on actual needs makes no sense.

As for subsequent assignments, it is assumed that LACNIC's default, usual practice is to reserve space adjacent to any assignment so that subsequent assignments will not require another announcement and thus a single aggregate prefix can be announced. In view of this, it appears senseless to include this text in the policy.

Currently, the texts in sections 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2 of the policy proposal are identical:

“Assignments will be made in blocks smaller than or equal to a /32 but always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block, but only if duly documented and justified.”

We propose changing the text of both sections and replacing it with the following:

“Assignments will be made in blocks always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block (i.e., extending the existing assignment “n” bits to the left).

Currently, the texts in sections 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2 of the policy proposal are identical:

“Assignments will be made in blocks smaller than or equal to a /32 but always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block, but only if duly documented and justified.”

We propose changing the text of both sections and replacing it with the following:

“Assignments will be made in blocks always greater than or equal to a /48.

Subsequent assignments must be duly documented and justified. Where possible, subsequentch allocatssiognments will be made from an adjaceontiguous address block (i.e., extending the existing assignment “"n”" bits to the left).

Currently, the texts in sections 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2 of the policy proposal are identical:

“Assignments will be made in blocks smaller than or equal to a /32 but always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block, but only if duly documented and justified.”

We propose changing the text of both sections and replacing it with the following:

“Assignments will be made in blocks always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block (i.e., extending the existing assignment “n” bits to the left).

Currently, the texts in sections 4.5.4.1 and 4.5.4.2 of the policy proposal are identical:

“Assignments will be made in blocks smaller than or equal to a /32 but always greater than or equal to a /48.

Where possible, subsequent allocations will be made from an adjacent address block, but only if duly documented and justified.”

We propose changing the text of both sections and replacing it with the following:

“Assignments will be made in blocks always greater than or equal to a /48.

Subsequent assignments must be duly documented and justified. Where possible, subsequentch allocatssiognments will be made from an adjaceontiguous address block (i.e., extending the existing assignment “"n”" bits to the left).

-

-