[arin-ppml] IPv6 Allocation Planning

[Owen DeLong]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:25 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:

> 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).

What if you properly gave them /48s? If a /40 works for you at /56, then,
a /36 works for you at /48s.

>> 
>>> 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.

Yeah, that's ugly and best avoided. I think we can improve policy to
make it possible for you to:

1.	Get /36s
2.	For others to get even larger blocks if they want them.
3.	To have ARIN round allocations up to nibble boundaries.

That way we can make it easier for those that choose to to avoid
disaggregation. Might not be the perfect solution, but, I think it is an
improvement on the current situation.

Owen