[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Jan 20 12:49:48 EST 2010

> On the other hand one company might have two sites running in 
> two different communities through the same provider with a 
> common routing policy.  These two sites could use a common IP 
> space.  My company provides connectivity all across the 
> eastern part of our state.  Insurance companies, hospitals 
> and farms commonly have satellite premises in different 
> communities that could route as a single unit.  (FWIW farms 
> nowadays are technically advanced big businesses)

If you give the customer a /48 for each of the individual sites
that CURRENTLY function as parts of a single unit, you can't go
wrong. If the customer doesn't want to actually use all of the
/48s, it won't hurt anyone for them to gather dust for a few
years. Then, when they come back for more addresses because they
sold of part of the business, including one of the sites, you can
remind them that they could have just used that /48 in the first
place and saved themselves some grief. The story will make the 
rounds as a case study, and future network designers will be sure
to use a discrete /48 block per discrete physical site so that
they are not burned in the future. That's how best practices get
> I don't see that (community AND provider) is functional as a 
> determiner. Perhaps (community AND provider AND POC) would work.

No. Street address is the best thing we have. If there are two
different street addresses, then there are two different sites.
Even if it is units 17 and 18 of the strip mall at 123 anywhere 
lane, it is still two sites. 

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list