[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[George Bonser]

> That certainly isn't the intent.  ARIN policy for IPv6 is intended to
> allow you to
> apply for that address space you can reasonably justify.
> 
> If you don't need more than 256 subnets per site, then, there is
> nothing wrong
> with assigning a /56 per site.  However, if you think you might, then,
> a /48 per
> site is prudent.

The problem is, being multihomed, nobody is going to take a /56
announcement for a site and while we do have our sites in the SF Bay
area interconnected and our policy is to announce an aggregate route, we
have upstream transit and peering at the individual sites and if
anything should happen to the backhaul between the sites we would need
to deaggregate the announcement.  Most will take a /48 announcement from
PI space, practically nobody (aside from the immediate upstream) would
take a /56.  We played with the notion of being able to announce a /56
if all sites had access to the same upstreams and having them aggregate
it to their peers but realized that the current "best practice" is to
simply announce a /48 or better.

And we plan of expansion outside of the area that are likely going to be
discrete networks so again, a /48 is the only thing that is going to
work.


> 
> I'm surprised they won't give you the /44.  We're working on policy to
> fix that.
> All of the IPv6 policies under consideration for the next meeting do
> rectify
> this and cause ARIN to allocate IPv6 on nibble boundaries (or more).
> 
> Owen

I suppose they can only go by their current policy guidelines and
apparently it is policy to allocate only what is needed for the
immediate foreseeable future.

George