Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 2/5/2011 7:01 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> And did you change the amount of growth space you allowed for each pop?
> Were you already constrained in your IPv4 growth space and just restored
> your desired growth margins?
Growth rate has nothing to do with it. ARIN doesn't allow for growth in 
initial assignments. No predictions, no HD-Ratio, and definitely no 
nibble alignments.

Current policy proposal hopes to fix a lot of that.

> > In the near future I expect to be somewhere between a /24
> > and a /28, which is an 8 to 12 bit shift right from my IPv4 /16 allocation.
> Only if you can serve all those customers from that /16.  You are
> then not comparing apples to apples.  You are comparing a net with
> no growth space (IPv4) to one with growth space (IPv6).
Not sure I get ya here. I am comparing apples to apples. ARIN gives me a 
/16 of space. There are the same number of /16's in IPv4 as IPv6. 
However, in IPv6, they will allocate a /24 at most to me, and I will 
never exceed that. This shift of 8+ bits is the gains we get shifting 
from IPv4 to IPv6.


Jack