nanog mailing list archives
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 02:29:27 -0700
On Oct 18, 2010, at 10:53 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:16 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:You are to be commended for your leadership in conserving space. Our children will surely be grateful that thanks to your efforts they have 99.99999% of IPv6 space left to work with rather than the paltry 99.9975% that might have been their inheritance were it not for your efforts. Bravo!Thanks. Actually, I think people are following the RIR example. ARIN handed out a /32 as standard for an ISP, so a /32 is the framework even a medium sized ISP will use.
No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for larger.
Our routing/IP Numbering Plan: <regional assignment><pop assignment><customer assignment> /40 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments /44 for only 16 pop assignments? /48 to customer for only 16 customers per pop assignment?
Or, better...If you're that large... Start with a /28 /36 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments /40 for 16 pops per region /48 for 256 customer end-sites per POP or, if you have larger POPs, start with a /24 and /32 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments /36 for 16 pops per region /48 for 4,096 customer end-sites per POP or, if you have larger regions and more POPs per region /28 regional assignment supporting 16 regions /36 for 256 pops per region /48 for 4,096 customer end-sites per POP
Perhaps another view /40 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments /44 still for 16 pop assignments /56 to customer for 4096 customer assignments I'm sorry, but I just couldn't find a way to make /48 to customers work appropriately, and ARIN seems to think a /32 is fair, yet I have to design an IP assignment plan up front to make for more efficient routing. I actually expect a /42-/43 per pop, and /38 per region even in the /56 to customer model.
ARIN thinks a /32 is the MINIMUM for an ISP. Not the Maximum. Several ISPs have received larger than /32 and all you need to do is show a reasonable justification for the space. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption, (continued)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Dan White (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Doug Barton (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption George Bonser (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Eugen Leitl (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption George Bonser (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Ben Butler (Oct 19)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Ben Butler (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Leslie Nobile (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jens Link (Oct 18)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Kevin Oberman (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Kevin Oberman (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 Randy Bush (Oct 16)