[arin-ppml] 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:

> On 20 Sep 2010, at 10:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
> [...]
>> I think the simpler (and much cheaper for the organization) approach
>> would be to realize that the "Large Complex" networks are almost never
>> implemented in a single building.
> I didn't realise that the proposal was for the organization to receive a separate PI assignment for each building or campus in their network. I had thought the proposal would allow an organization to receive a single (shortish) prefix to be used by multiple campus networks, data centers etc...
The proposal allows them to receive a single (shortish) prefix which includes at least one /48
per building in their network. The prefix length is based on the number of /48s they need where
it is at least large enough that current need does not exceed 75% of the prefix issued.

There are provisions for more than a /48 per site if an entity somehow has exceedingly large
sites. We expect that to be a clause that is never used as we've been unable to fathom the idea
of a single-tenant structure which needs more than 65,536 subnets.

A "site" is defined as a single tenant structure, or, a single tenant in a multi-tenant structure.

If you have 30 buildings on a campus, this policy would allow you to get at least 40 /48s worth
of space. Rounding that up to a nibble boundary, you would receive a /40 (256 /48s).

If you have 350 offices in cities around the world, you would be entitled to at least 467 /48s,
which, rounded up to a nibble boundary becomes 4096 /48s, or, a /36.

Given this, do you still think HD ratio is needed?