Re: quietly....

[Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve () eintellego net>]

Not necessarily.

There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for
APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a
variety of justification.

For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's.

This is the one that is bothering me at the moment.

...Skeeve

--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve () eintellego net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call
- Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista -





On 2/02/11 3:05 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert () gmail com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
> > > We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is
> > > within
> > > reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4
> > > times
> > > the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
> >
> > Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes?
>
> More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
> initial allocation and requiring more.  People asking for the first
> one just indicates initial adoption rates.
>
> Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression
> that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for
> an extended period of time.  If that is not true, then that's a flag.
>
>
> -- 
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert () gmail com