[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy
bill at herrin.us
Wed Jan 20 11:15:52 EST 2010
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>> It is common for companies with several sites to have them all connected
>> to the Internet via a gateway at a central site. Nevertheless, it would
>> be ridiculous for ARIN to treat this a single site.
> It's not that ridiculous.
> It is probably more ridiculous to suggest that each of one end user
> network's physical locations really needs an additional /48
> I believe /48 is selected on the assumption that all the end
> user's subnets would be taken from their one /48.
> If each physical location receives its own allocation, then there's
> really no reason to pick /48 over /56. A large number of
> subnets at a single physical location is quite rare.
Or to put a different spin on it:
IPv6's routing and addressing architecture is directly sensitive to:
LAN count (hard)
Administrative system boundaries (moderate)
It is not directly sensitive to:
Many many other factors important to various SIGs.
That's why Multiple Distinct Networks (administrative boundary) is an
important difference that merits additional /48's while multiple POPs
(physical location) is not.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML