[arin-ppml] IPv6 Allocation Planning

[Charles O'Hern]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Tue 8/10/2010 12:54 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
>> The one and
>> only reason the company I represent has not initiated adoption of IPv6
>> is the cost increase in fees to ARIN.  I understand that PPML is not the
>> place to discuss ARIN's fee structure, so this is not intended as an
>> appeal.
>>
>> But as a statement of what is barring our IPv6 adoption:  As long as the
>> minimum allocation of IPv6 for ISPs costs double what we pay now for a
>> /21 of IPv4 (the minimum allocation for multihomed ISPs), my company
>> will not be deploying IPv6.
>>    
>
> Would it help to change the minimum allocation for ISPs to /36?  Would
> that be sufficient for your 10-year needs, or do you really need a /32?
We don't really need a /32.  If we calculate need based on allocating
/56's to our residential and small business customers given our growth
over the last 10 years, a very liberal estimate would be that we'd need
no more than a /40 by 2020 (and probably far beyond).
>
>> Deploying IPv6 using FD00:: addresses in dual stack with preexisting
>> IPv4 address has worked well in our internal testing thus far.  So at
>> the moment our opinion is that the protocol itself is not an issue.
>>    
>
> Good to hear.  When your upstream makes v6 available, will you be
> getting a /48 from them and deploying with that?
>
> -Scott
>
Yes, as soon as either of our upstreams has it available, and if we are
still unable to obtain an ARIN allocation, we'll be requesting at least
two /48's.  The problem  then will be getting upstream A to advertise
and transport the traffic for destination addresses allocated to us from
upstream B, and visa versa.

-- 
Charles O'Hern
Network Operations
 
TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
1-(805) 227-7000  1-(800) 974-DISK
http://www.tcsn.net  abuse at tcsn.net