[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic
owen at delong.com
Mon Jun 8 20:25:46 EDT 2009
I believe that situation is exactly what proposal 84 is intended to
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
needs, be vocal in your support for it to become policy.
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
> 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.
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML