[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Owen DeLong]

I believe that situation is exactly what proposal 84 is intended to  
rectify.

Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer for you under current policy.

I would urge you to review proposal 84, and, if you feel this  
addresses your
needs, be vocal in your support for it to become policy.

Owen

On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:48 PM, 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.