[136847] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Sat Feb 5 20:21:15 2011
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 19:20:30 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110206010145.9DCD99B60B9@drugs.dv.isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
> Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
> your desired growth margins?
>
Growth rate has nothing to do with it. ARIN doesn't allow for growth in
initial assignments. No predictions, no HD-Ratio, and definitely no
nibble alignments.
Current policy proposal hopes to fix a lot of that.
>> In the near future I expect to be somewhere between a /24
>> and a /28, which is an 8 to 12 bit shift right from my IPv4 /16 allocation.
> Only if you can serve all those customers from that /16. You are
> then not comparing apples to apples. You are comparing a net with
> no growth space (IPv4) to one with growth space (IPv6).
>
Not sure I get ya here. I am comparing apples to apples. ARIN gives me a
/16 of space. There are the same number of /16's in IPv4 as IPv6.
However, in IPv6, they will allocate a /24 at most to me, and I will
never exceed that. This shift of 8+ bits is the gains we get shifting
from IPv4 to IPv6.
Jack
