Re: IPv6 and CDN's

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Nov 28, 2021, at 15:51 , Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:41, scott <surfer () mauigateway com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/2021 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > > Why not properly assign /48s to customers and /40s to cities?
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Side note: I recently tried to get /48 per customer with ARIN on repeated emails and they refused.  We were already 
> > given an IPv6 block a while back.  I told them I wanted to expand it so I could give out a /48 per customer and that 
> > we had more than 65535 customers, which is the block we got; 65535 /48s.  I didn't even account for our needs.
> >
> > Without arguing the reasons, we will have to hand out /56s, rather than /48s because of this.  So, it's not all 
> > /48-unicorns, puppies and rainbows.
> >
> > scott
>
> Looks like a policy omission.  You should be able to grow the per customer allocation up to /48 per customer.
> One shouldn’t be stuck with /56 because one made a bad choice of prefix size initially.

There is definitely something wrong here… Policy clearly states that you should be able to obtain an allocation large 
enough to provide /48s to all your customers if you so choose.

In fact, it is generally quite generous beyond that point.

Owen