Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation

[Randy Carpenter <rcarpen () network1 net>]

John,

Thank you very much. That clarification helps out quite a bit.

-Randy

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

----- Original Message -----
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their
> > nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close
> > considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries,
> > and there doesn't seem to be consensus yet.
> >
> > For these customers, I don't think they will need more than a /29,
> > but if we collectively decide that a /28 is the next step from a
> > /32, how will the older allocations be dealt with? This is pretty
> > much a rhetorical question at this point, and I suppose the proper
> > thing to do is to channel these questions toward the PPML for
> > discussion as potential policy.
>
> Just for reference regarding existing IPv6 sparse practice:
>
> Our current plan is to use the sparse allocation block (currently a
> /14)
> until we fill it up. Bisection done at the /28 boundary which leaves a
> fairly large reserve.
>
> If an organization needs an allocation larger than a /28, we have set
> aside a /15 block for those larger ISPs.
>
> The orgs that already have allocations (/32s from /29s) also have a
> reserve. If they need additional space, they can either request from
> their /29 reserve, or if they need more than a /29, can request a new
> block.
>
> Obviously, this can be changed if the community wishes it so. Bring
> any obvious suggestions to the ARIN suggestion process, and anything
> which might be contentious or affect allocations to the policy
> process.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN