[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Scott Leibrand]

Dave,

I think you may be referring to the "IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks" 
policy proposal at 
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-March/013129.html

Would that proposal, if adopted, resolve your issue?  If so, it should 
be up for discussion at the fall meeting in Dearborn.

-Scott


Dave Temkin wrote:
> I'm going to attempt to keep this brief, but here goes:
>
> Recently, I received a /48.  After beginning our rollout, I quickly 
> discovered that we'd need a /44 at the very least.  See, I have 
> multiple networks that are not interconnected by a common backbone, 
> and so a single /48 would leave me with a useless routing domain given 
> that most people prefix filter at le /48.
>
> Currently, each OrgID is entitled to only one /48.  Under IPv4, if you 
> operate separate, disparate networks you're allowed to request 
> multiple blocks under the Multiple Discrete Networks policy.  No such 
> policy exists for IPv6, however it's been proposed here:  
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six583
>
> I'd love to hear suggestions on workarounds until such the proposed 
> policy would be voted on and implemented. PA addressing is not a 
> viable option.
>
> If we expect IPv6 adoption to have a significant uptick we need to 
> take away silly barriers to addressing such as this and make address 
> assignments accessible for the common ASP or Enterprise - and right 
> now it's definitely not.
>
>
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.