Re: Practical numbers for IPv6 allocations

[Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>]

On 7/10/2009, at 6:10 AM, Doug Barton wrote:

> Tony Hain wrote:
> > Doug Barton wrote:
> > > In the following I'm assuming that you're familiar with the fact  
> > > that
> > > staying on the 4-byte boundaries makes sense because it makes  
> > > reverse
> > > DNS delegation easier. It also makes the math easier.
> >
> > I assume you meant 4-bit.   ;)
>
> Grrr, I hate when I do that. I spent quite a bit of time on this post,
> and the one time I remembered that I needed to go back and
> double-check what I wrote there I wasn't at the keyboard. Thanks for
> keeping me honest.
>
> There was one other thing you wrote that I wanted to clarify, you
> indicated that I was arguing for ISPs to only get one shot at an IPv6
> allocation. Since my post was already really long I chose to leave out
> the bit about how (TMK, which could be outdated) the RIRs are
> reserving a bit or two for their allocations to ISPs so going back and
> expanding should be an easy thing to do. On a personal note, I hope
> that we DO need to expand IPv6 allocations to ISPs as this thing
> finally gets deployed.

My understanding is that the RIRs are doing sparse allocation, as  
opposed to reserving a few bits. I could be wrong.

--
Nathan Ward