Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

[Randy Carpenter <rcarpen () network1 net>]

It would be nice as a start, but does not really take into consideration future expansion needs.

I would think that you could draw some parallels, though.

Something like:

v4 /16 ~ v6 /32
v4 /12 ~ v6 /28
v4 /8 ~ v6 /24

I know it we don't want to equate v4 and v6, but it may help as a guideline for the size of the customer base.

-Randy

--
| Randy Carpenter
| Vice President, IT Services
| Red Hat Certified Engineer
| First Network Group, Inc.
| (419)739-9240, x1
----

----- Original Message -----
> I think APNIC has a policy that defines the minimum IPv6 allocation
> based on your current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the
> problem?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen () network1 net>
> To: "Nick Hilliard" <nick () foobar org>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 6:31:18 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
>
>
> I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
>
> My personal opinion is that it should be even more sparse, and that
> allocations should be done on nibble boundaries. Any reasonably-sized
> ISP should get at least a /28.
>
> I deal with many small-ish ISPs, and most are 5,000-10,000 users.
> Those are probably served by a /32 for quite some time. When you get
> into the ones that are 20,000-50,000, it gets tricker to deal with.
> Those should get a /28. The mega-ISPs should get a /24, or even a /20.
>
> Another problem is that the allocations from IANA to the RIRs are too
> small to begin with. If there are 5 RIRs, why does there have to be so
> much fragmentation? It is too late for that, though.
>
> Anyway, I think there are some proposals floating around (Owen? ;-) )
> That would make the /32,/28,/24 (nibble boundary) idea into policy.
> We'll have to wait and see what happens.