[120494] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Tue Dec 22 22:02:58 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F7104@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:02:12 +1300
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23/12/2009, at 3:52 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if
>> not
>> then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do
>> filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect.
>
> I can't in good conscience justify a /32. That is just too much
> space.
> I believe I can, however, justify a separate /48 in Europe and APAC
> with
> my various offices and data centers in that region coming from the /48
> for that region.
I'm not sure it's about good conscience and worrying about address
space wastage anymore. I mean sure, don't go ask for a /8 or
something, but follow the RIR guidelines - don't paint yourself in to
a corner later by trying to save the world now.
If you are assigning addresses to customers, you should have a /32
allocation. If you are an end user of addresses, you should have a /48
portable assignment. In APNIC world anyway, I'm not sure of the terms
and policies used in other regions.
--
Nathan Ward
