[135505] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Wed Jan 26 01:31:43 2011
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 07:30:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
In-Reply-To: <06ad01cbbcee$d91cc210$8b564630$@net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Tony Hain wrote:
> Every organization with a *real* customer base should have significantly
> shorter than a /32. In particular every organization that says "I can't
> give my customers prefix length X because I only have a /32" needs to go
> back to ARIN today and trade that in for a *real block*. There should be
> at least 10 organizations in the ARIN region that qualify for a /20 or
> shorter, and most would likely be /24 or shorter.
+1 on this.
We returned our /32 that we received back in 2002 or so, and after proper
application received a /25 where I believe we have up to /22 reserved for
us in case we need it.
We hope we're not going to have to pollute the DFZ with more than a single
entry in the forseeable future.
To everybody who thinks we need to conserve addresses, please consider
this current allocation policy (/48 and /56) as something we'll do for the
first /3 in use, when we exhaust that, we need to really look at what
we're doing and look if we need to change the policy for the other /3:s.
We have 7 more tries to go before we exhaust the whole IPv6 space.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
