[136285] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Feb 2 06:04:19 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxkvU-2-cyrc9_kU=v6d=KFdHCdoKppiQYcyOg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:59:51 -0800
To: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
>>> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is =
within
>>> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4 =
times
>>> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
>>=20
>> Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes?
>=20
> More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
> initial allocation and requiring more. People asking for the first
> one just indicates initial adoption rates.
>=20
> Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression
> that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for
> an extended period of time. If that is not true, then that's a flag.
>=20
There are definitely policy changes needed in order to make this true. I =
doubt
that there are many network operators that have deployed enough IPv6 to
be up against that wall yet. I know of only one.
ARIN Policy Proposal 121 is intended to improve that situation =
significantly
and also reduce the probability for human-factors related outages in the =
future
in IPv6.
Owen
