[ppml] IPv6>>32
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Fri May 13 14:07:04 EDT 2005
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6>>32
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6>>32
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--On Friday, May 13, 2005 10:24 AM -0400 "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb at merit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 10:31 +0100, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote: >> > o Increasing the HD ratio, or a flat utilization threshold fixes >> > any possible shortage. If that doesn't do it, /48 -> /56 >> > would. The more I look at the numbers, the more convinced I >> > am that /48 should be left alone and a flat threshold be used >> > (perhaps 60%). >> >> I agree that the /48 --> /56 issue is definitely second priority. >> If we can solve the immediate problem by adjusting the HD ratio >> rules then we should limit current action to that area. >> > > I think there are other reasons for considering /56's. Consider, > for example, university dorms rooms. Should each of them get a /48? > The University of Michigan has 5793 dorms and 1483 family housing > apartments (ref -- http://www.housing.umich.edu/general/factsheet.html). > You'd need a /35 at a minimum to give everyone a /48 and that wouldn't > leave much headroom or flexibility in addressing hierarchy. > Realistically, you probably want to assign a /32. > And the policy states that such a situation would be an LIR anyway, as they obviously have at least 200 students (external customers) subscribing to their IP service. Voila... They get a /32 anyway. > Merit provides Internet access for 13 universities and the State > of Michigan. Based on the above considerations, we asked for a /28 > from ARIN (enough for a /32 for each university and the state). Our > application was denied, and we only received a /32. What size prefix > should allocate to the universities (ARIN suggested a /40)? What > prefix size should we advise them to assign to dorm rooms? > Since each of them would qualify as an LIR most likely, I see no problem with each of them getting a /32 under existing policy and if they wanted to aggregate within your block, I can see no justification for not approving a /28 to deal with that. However, I think that the policy makes it pretty clear that they could each qualify for a /32 as an LIR direct. If they can use a /40, that's reasonable, too, depending on each other university's particular needs. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20050513/52860caa/attachment.bin
- Previous message: [ppml] IPv6>>32
- Next message: [ppml] IPv6>>32
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list