[ppml] IPv6 addressing plans

cja@daydream.com packetgrrl at gmail.com
Tue Sep 4 12:27:58 EDT 2007


Michael,

I used to run a network that had allocations from the (at the time) 3 RIRs.
I did that on purpose for a couple of reasons.

- The networks were connected in a way that it made sense to have RIR based
allocations
-  I wanted our networks and the people who ran them to be active in the
appropriate communities.
-  The deployment schedules and address space utilization rates were
significantly different from region to region. If we had it all from ARIN we
probably would have had to have three separate allocations with different
maintainer IDs anyway.

I can tell you this.  And I know you're not going to believe me but it was
much much easier to deal with ARIN's policies than the policies of the other
RIRs.   We had a very small allocation window size from RIPE and so if we
wanted to assign a subnet greater than a /29 to a customer we had to ask
permission.  Even when it was raised to a /24 it was a total pain.  Further
there were some really interesting requirements of cable providers in RIPE
and APNIC that we had to work with the communities to fix.  That actually
went very smoothly.

We were certainly told that we could have all of our allocations from ARIN
because our company headquarters was in the US.  There were days that I
wished I had done just that.  I think we did greatly benefit from being
active in all the regions and knowing the regional ISP communities was also
a great benefit.

I hope this helps.
----Cathy


On 9/4/07, michael.dillon at bt.com <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any reasoning why a network spanning two or more of the
> RIR regions, should or should not get separate ISP allocations from each
> region?
>
> I'm not just interested in opinions, but also the reasoning behind them,
> especially any technical pros and cons.
>
> In addition, are there any characteristics that define a good IPv6
> addressing plan for a network operator?
>
> We've just received an IPv6 /22 from RIPE based solely on projections in
> our European network infrastructure. Fairly soon we will have to decide
> whether to internally assign chunks of that space to our North American
> network or to go to ARIN for a separate IPv6 allocation based on North
> American needs only.
>
> I imagine that a number of other companies are in this position and if
> there is actually a best practice for IPv6 addressing, it would be good
> to document it and follow it before deployment gets much further ahead.
> On the other hand, if it is a coin-toss scenario from a technical point
> of view, it would be nice to see general acknowledgement of that fact.
>
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member
> Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070904/6ca3d38c/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list