[178241] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sander Steffann)
Sat Feb 21 07:49:00 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <20150221102537.GA31907@besserwisser.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 13:48:48 +0100
To: =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=A5ns_Nilsson?= <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi Mans,
> I'm working at one of those organisations who have a /48 and am =
announcing
> it into DFZ. We have a situation where I might have another site with
> separate connectivity to the DFZ (but there is internal networking)
> which would entitle me to another /48 according to RIR rules.
Correct.
> I did ask my LIR whether there is any thought given to the possibility =
of
> getting the next higher prefix, thus creating a /47. They did =
understand
> the "why" perfectly well, of course.
>=20
> However, apparently there is no such process or intention available
> from the RIR in question (RIPE), short of explicitly asking for that
> specific prefix.
So you asked to grow the /48 to a /47? Was it accepted? Or did you want =
the RIR to automatically grow your first assignment when you request a =
second one without you having to ask?
> Of course this does not help every case, but supporting aggregation
> where possible certainly ought to be in-scope for most policy-making
> bodies in this area.
Then please take this to the appropriate policy-making body: =
address-policy-wg@ripe.net :-)
Cheers!
Sander
