[117818] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kevin Oberman)
Sun Oct 4 19:52:31 2009
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Oct 2009 04:32:44 PDT."
<C6EDD5EC.29D66%leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 16:49:22 -0700
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:32:44 -0700
>
> 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 geographical
> > 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 with
> the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the
> meeting in Dearborn.
I don't think so. I believe the statement is not in regard to separate,
discrete networks bu to a network with a national footprint which must
deaggregate to do traffic engineering by region. Item 2 clearly makes
2009-5 non-applicable to this case.
This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG
in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings?
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
