[168624] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Updated ARIN allocation information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jan 31 20:17:48 2014
In-Reply-To: <CAAYzVeGwryaAiN_ovfGh+vvdQXez2AaG5+3s=q32E0AscPAzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:14:37 -0500
To: Bryan Socha <bryan@serverstack.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org List" <nanog@nanog.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I will attempt to clarify this once more...
When I wrote the policy which created this set-aside space, it was, as Bill h=
as said, intended as a hedge to provide minimal resources for organizations t=
hat are unable to obtain larger IPv4 blocks through any normal mechanism (st=
andard allocation/assignment, transfer, market, etc.) and desperately need s=
ome space which they can hopefully get routed to support the bare minimum IP=
v4 connectivity for their IPv6 environment.
I expect that if use of these blocks does become necessary, then routing the=
m will almost certainly be the least of the problems we face in that circums=
tance.
It is my sincere hope that we come to our senses and implement IPv6 sufficie=
ntly that these blocks are never needed. However, as the saying goes, I am h=
oping for the best and planning for the worst. The ARIN community overwhelmi=
ngly supported this idea at the time and that is why we set aside the block i=
n question.
In answer to Tore's statement, this block does not apply the standard justif=
ication criteria and I think you would actually be quite hard pressed to jus=
tify a /24 from this prefix. In most cases, it is expected that these would b=
e the IPv4 address pool for the public facing IPv4 side of a NAT64 or 464xla=
t service. Most organizations probably only need one or two addresses and so=
would receive a /28. It is expected that each of these addresses likely sup=
ports several thousand customers in a service provider environment.
Owen
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Bryan Socha <bryan@serverstack.com> wrote:
>=20
> has it be clarified by arin on why they are going to allocate /28s? seem=
s
> a faster way to waste ipv4 space with unusable ip addresses? The only
> thing I can think of is micro allocations for IX points.
>=20
> *Bryan Socha*
> Network Engineer
> 646.450.0472 | *bryan@serverstack.com <bryan@serverstack.com>*
>=20
> *ServerStack* | Scale Big
>=20
>=20
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
>>> What I fail to understand from this thread is the apparent expectation
>>> that these smaller-than-/24 microscopic delegations from ARIN will be
>>> popular.
>>=20
>> Hi Tore,
>>=20
>> There is every expectation that they will be unpopular. They're a
>> hedge against the possibility of a grueling last-minute IPv6
>> conversion following a failed IPv4 market. They're something that can,
>> with difficulty, be made to work. They serve no other purpose.
>>=20
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> --
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>>=20
>>=20
