[arin-ppml] A modest proposal for IPv6 address allocations

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Sun May 31 20:49:25 EDT 2009

Paul Vixie wrote:

>> If they were only allowed to get a /48 to begin with, they couldn't
>> assign any further /48's.
> Not everything that IETF has written about address allocation has worked
> out in practice.  (For example, classful addressing, or experimental or
> multicast addressing.)  It's reasonable for the RIR's to evaluate the
> "ground truth" when composing our allocation policies, even though it's
> also quite important to read everything the IETF has to say on the topic.

As far as I can see internal assignation policy hinges on utilization 
density justification. If it is per /64, then you should only assign 
that. If it is /48, assigning less is just going to make it harder than 
it would otherwise be to get your /32 expanded to /(32-x)

In other words, if saying that I have 30k customers in my /32 and I am 
at 50% utilization passes the smell test, then it is in my best 
interests to do so modulo block fees.

Speaking of fees, according to current fee schedule, /48 per customer is 
   $0.034 for the small guy (at %100 utilization of /32), $0.0005 for 
the XXlarge assuming /22.

68x between /32 and /22, which is about the same for ipv4 between /21 
and /11.

Of course, right now it seems that v6 cant be given away fast enough, 
except to people who really want to use it. The latter needs to be fixed.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list