Re: IPv6 allocation plan, security, and 6-to-4 conversion

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 07:51 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Eric Louie <elouie () techintegrity com> wrote:
> > I'm putting together my first IPv6 allocation plan.  The general layout:
> > /48 for customers universally and uniformly
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Good luck with that. Personally, I'd be inclined to think that some
> customers will (reasonably) want more than a /48 and I'd be in less of
> a rush to burn through my /32 for the sake of customers who would have
> been perfectly happy with a /56. The only deliberately static sizes
> I'd endorse is /64 for an ethernet LAN and the 4-bit nibble boundary
> for any delegations.

Yes and no.

First, assuming you are limited to a /32 is absurd. I’ve personally helped multiple organizations obtain various size 
allocations ranging from /32 to /24 with little or no difficulty so long as the size of the network warranted it. (The 
biggest challenge was a large organization that I had to work at showing ARIN was, in fact, an ISP and not merely an 
end-user. They got a /24. In fairness to ARIN, it took me a while to realize myself that they were an ISP before I 
approached ARIN. It was an odd situation.)

/48 for all customer sites is not at all unreasonable and is fully supported by ARIN policy.

Where Bill is correct is that some customers may have more than one site. The official policy definition of a site is a 
single building or structure, or, in the case of a multi-tenant building or structure, a single tenant within that 
building. Yes, this could technically mean that a college dorm contains thousands of sites and could justify thousands 
of /48s.

Owen