[117808] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Vegoda)
Sun Oct 4 07:33:27 2009
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com>, Brandon Butterworth
<brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:32:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <63ac96a50910032019o39112e27j9cf672812cdbf560@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 03/10/2009 8:19, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
[...]
> So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographi=
cal
> regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
> and give back the /32? Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead.
> Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
> range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
> range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
> a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
I think ARIN proposal 2009-5
(https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html) is designed to cope wit=
h
the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the
meeting in Dearborn.
Regards,
Leo
