[ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes-InputRequested

Christopher Morrow christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Mon Jan 29 20:49:47 EST 2007

On 1/29/07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
> Hi David,
> No, using address space from the upstream is not a solution. Example 1, this
> ISP has 2 or more upstream providers. Example 2, it has only a dozen of big

the solution you describe is not a problem with PA nor PI space, but
with multihoming in v6. So, provided there was a multihoming solution
that worked for PA addressed sites this doesn't seem to be a problem.
Good thing there is a solution for PA addressed sites, eh?

> customers with big networks, can't risk depending on the addressing space of
> the actual upstream (he may decide to change it later and will need to
> renumber all the customers).

'dozens of big networks customers' so, like over 200 sites and they
should/could get a direct ipv6 allocation. Or off the sites are 'big'
who cares? each is getting a /48 which is 65,535 subnets per site, so
bigger than that? 1 prefix per site inside their routing domain seems
well within reason. As to re-numbering, isn't that 'free' with ipv6?
couldn't they re-number as time allowed once they were large enough to
justify a direct v6 allocation from ARIN ?

These arguements seem specious....

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list