[136295] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: quietly....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Wed Feb 2 07:38:41 2011
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 12:37:54 +0000
In-Reply-To: <0958C15C-FF67-4F1A-B6CB-B28D972F5013@arin.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>=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
> I don't believe we've had an IPv6 "additional" request yet (but I look
> forward to it happening at some point :-). I will check and get back
> to the list with the definitive answer.
It turns out we've had a handful of ISPs come back for additional IPv6=20
blocks but it was the result of an better understanding of their evolving
address allocation requirements pre-deployment. =20
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
