[130982] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Mon Oct 18 20:14:36 2010
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 20:14:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1790150026.11324.1287430937213.JavaMail.root@zimbra.network1.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>=20
> I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest =
neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a =
lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be con=
sensus yet.
>=20
> For these customers, I don't think they will need more than a /29, but if=
we collectively decide that a /28 is the next step from a /32, how will th=
e older allocations be dealt with? This is pretty much a rhetorical questi=
on at this point, and I suppose the proper thing to do is to channel these =
questions toward the PPML for discussion as potential policy.
Just for reference regarding existing IPv6 sparse practice:
Our current plan is to use the sparse allocation block (currently a /14)
until we fill it up. Bisection done at the /28 boundary which leaves a
fairly large reserve.
If an organization needs an allocation larger than a /28, we have set=20
aside a /15 block for those larger ISPs.
The orgs that already have allocations (/32s from /29s) also have a=20
reserve. If they need additional space, they can either request from=20
their /29 reserve, or if they need more than a /29, can request a new=20
block.
Obviously, this can be changed if the community wishes it so. Bring
any obvious suggestions to the ARIN suggestion process, and anything
which might be contentious or affect allocations to the policy process.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
