[123816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6, multihoming, and customer allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Mar 16 12:19:35 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <d066472f1003160738m50708743q8d49ef36d1aa7a68@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:17:02 -0700
To: Rick Ernst <nanog@shreddedmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
> Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up.
>=20
> General responses (some that didn't make it to the list):
> - "There really is that much space, don't worry about it."
> - /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's =
a
> bigger assignment
> - /52 (or /56) on smaller assignments for conservation if it makes =
you
> feel better
> - Open question on whether byte/octet-boundary assignment (/56 vs =
/52) is
> better for some reason
>=20
Octet boundary, not really. Nibble boundary, yes. Both for DNS =
delegation
convenience and for human factors issues.
> I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. =
I've seen
> discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the "standard" =
(widely
> deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be?
>=20
So far, mostly it's /48 with a few select providers trying to hold the =
line at /32.
Owen
