Exchange point requests for IPv6 address space

At 12:57 05/09/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> 
>> The ARIN region currently has a policy in place for exchange 
>> points that applies to IPv4.  This policy can be found under 
>> the heading "Micro-allocations" at
>> http://www.arin.net/regserv/initial-isp.html
>> 
>> Should ARIN consider expanding this policy to apply to IPv6?
>
>Yes. It should expand the current micro-allocation policy to include IPv6
>registrations. Organizations requiring IPv6 address space under the
>micro-allocation policy should be able to petition ARIN directly. There
>should be no specification of block size in the policy, as it is both
>ARIN's and the requesting organization's responsibility to determine an
>appropriately-sized block, just like in v4 today.


Makes sense.

Richard, you said that the consensus was for a /64:

>There was consensus to assign a /64 to an isolated Exchange 
>Point.  It was further suggested to assign a /48 to a group 
>of inter-connected Exchange Points.  The RIPE NCC has recently
>proposed to their mailing list to proceed with assignments for
>Exchange Points using these guidelines.


A /64 seems small -- recall that the IETF draft on IPv6 allocations (not
currently adopted as ARIN policy) says:

"-Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or
  always-on connections should received (sic) a /48.
- Small and large enterprises should received (sic) a /48...

- Networks with a clearly expressed disinterest in subnetting
  should received a /64.
- Mobile networks, such as vehicles, cellular phones should
  received a static /64 prefix to allow the connection of multiple
  devices and, depending on the architecture, a /128 for a
  MobileIP care-of address [MobIPv6].
- Subscribers with a single dial-up node preferring a transient
  address should received a /128.

Note that there seems to be little benefit in not giving a /48 if future
growth is anticipated..."

So RIPE NCC felt that a /64 was more than adequate?

Cheers,
- Scott