[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksmith at adhost.com
Wed Apr 14 16:15:56 EDT 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:59 PM
> To: 'James Hess'; NOC at changeip.com
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP
> > -----Original Message-----
> > The problem is that even if you got an extremely small allocation
> > that as soon as you advertise it, you consume the same amount of
> > routing resources on everyone else's BGP router on the Internet,
> > that someone with a larger allocation has who is advertising theirs.
> > Thus it is not fair to base pricing solely on the amount of
> numbering.
> Just curious. Has this assertion ever been tested, examined, modeled?
> There are two logical components to this statement that I am interested
> in verifying:
> A small allocation:
> a) "consumes the same amount of resources"

Within limits.  Every route requires a single slot in your FIB that consumes more or less the same resources.

> b) on "everyone else's" BGP router

If you are speaking BGP and accepting the full DFZ routing table then this is also true.  If you are filtering based upon some local policy then YMMV.

The differences are more pedantic than technical.  I think the original assertion stands.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list