[136938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Sun Feb 6 16:57:37 2011
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:07:42 MDT."
<4D4EB93E.6000409@brightok.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2011 08:57:14 +1100
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <4D4EB93E.6000409@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
> On 2/5/2011 11:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > Rationalising to power of 2 allocations shouldn't result in requiring
> > 256 times the space you were claiming with the 8 bits of shift on
> > average. A couple of bits will allow that.
> >
> I didn't claim 8 bit average (if I accidentally did, my apologies). I
> claimed a minimum of 8 bits. Somewhere between 12 and 16 is more likely.
> However, with new ARIN proposals, we will see shorter shifts (yet still
> over 8 bit shifts) as it does nibble allocations for everything (pop
> assignments nibble aligned, ISP allocations nibble aligned, ISP to ISP
> reallocation policies). It treats utilization as a 75% bar with nibble
> alignments to allow for proper growth at the ISP level.
Why would a pop need to be nibble aligned? Customers should be
nibble aligned as it requires a delegation in the DNS. A pop doesn't
need a delegation in the DNS.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
