Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

[Eugeniu Patrascu <eugen () imacandi net>]

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 21:19, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven () cb3rob net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > On 10/26/2010 12:04 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > > > In practice, the RIRs are implementing sparse allocation which makes
> > > > it
> > > > possible to aggregate subsequent allocations. I.e. not as bad as it
> > > > may
> > > > seem.
> > >
> > > Except, if you are given bare minimums, and you are assigning out to
> > > subtending ISPs bare minimums, those subtending ISPs will end up with
> > > multiple networks. Some of them are BGP speakers. I can't use sparse
> > > allocation because I was given minimum space and not the HD-Ratio
> > > threshold space.
> >
> > Wait... If you are issuing space to ISPs that are multihomed, they should
> > be getting their own addresses. Even if they aren't multihomed, they should
> > probably be getting their own addresses. Why would you be supplying them
> > with address space if they are an ISP?
> >
> > -Randy
>
> to my knowledge, RIPE still does not issue ipv6 PI space.
> so giving them their own space, is "problematic" to say the least.

I got a /48 PI from RIPE a few months back.
Maybe your knowledge needs to be a little bit refreshed regarding RIPE
allocation policies :)