[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 19, 2010, at 1:15 PM, George Bonser wrote:

>> 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.
> 
In that case, you should probably be applying under the Multiple Discreet
Networks policy rather than getting an aggregate anyway.

> 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.
> 
The current policy is justified need.  I think that is a stricter interpretation
than is necessary, but, I don't know if that matters.  Will we see you
at the Toronto meeting?  I hope you will participate and express your
support for whatever changes you think are needed to IPv6 policy.

Owen

> George