[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 9 13:05:35 EST 2006
Again, I assume that everyone assumes...that an end site's v4 allocation is
preserved 'forever' even with the v6 allocation...right?
I never see this as specifically stated. If that is the case, then each v6
PI for an existing v4 PI IS and additional routing slot, but not if the v4
is eventually withdrawn...right?
For the record...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Narten
> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: Andrew Dul
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative to 2005-1
> > > Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under 188.8.131.52? Shouldn't
> > > someone with a IPv4 PI /22 be able to get an IPv6 /48?
> > >
> > It is just a line in the sand.
> > I personally believe that a /22 is too small, however there
> are those
> > who will think that an org with a /22 should be able to
> obtain a IPv6
> > PI address space.
> Note: a /22 is only 2^10 addresses, or 1024. That's a pretty
> darn small site, if you ask me.
> A /19 is somewhat better, namely, 8192.
> Still, I fear there are 10s to 100s of thousands of
> organizations in this size. Remember, each entity with a PI
> assignment translates into a routing slot in the DFZ.
> Heck, even if we set a threshold of /16, we'd be saying
> "anyone who can justify a class B assignment". I suspect that
> the number of end sites meeting that criteria is pretty large.
> I'd feel a lot more comfortable picking a threshold if I had
> a rough idea of how many entities we're talking about who
> would qualify. Given the above, even /19 sounds too low.
> In the absense of data, I'd say be _very _ conservative,
> e.g., start with a /16 (or higher).
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML