[165931] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Thu Sep 26 04:55:58 2013
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 08:52:50 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <9F19CF54-994A-4F3C-847D-EE086A4E9C39@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
/bill
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:45:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Each site should get at least a /48.
>
> Stop worrying about dense-packing the IP space in IPv6. This is IPv4-think. IPv6 is intended to be sparsely allocated.
>
> Owen
>
> On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Nathanael C. Cariaga <nccariaga@stluke.com.ph> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I raised actually this concern during our IP resource application.
> >
> > On a personal note, I think /48 IPv6 allocation is more than enough for our organization to use for at least the next 5-10 years assuming that this can be farmed out to our multiple sites. What makes this complicated for us is that we are operating on a multiple sites (geographically) with each site is doing multi-homing and having a /48 in each site would be very big waste of IP resources.
> >
> > -nathan
> >
> > On 9/25/2013 2:36 AM, Bryan Socha wrote:
> >> Everyone is following the same policies. a /48 PER SITE. did you
> >> request enough addresses from your RIR?
> >>
> >> Bryan Socha
> >>
> >
>
>
