[117823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Minimum IPv6 size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Vegoda)
Mon Oct 5 03:13:39 2009
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:13:03 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20091004234922.93E141CC0E@ptavv.es.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 04/10/2009 4:49, "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geograp=
hical
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.
I thought that "Geographic distance and diversity between networks" covered
the case above but I could well be wrong.
> This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG
> in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings?
I won't be there in person but look forward to watching the video feed.
Regards,
Leo
