[arin-ppml] V6 address allocation policy

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Jan 20 13:44:48 EST 2010

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:56 PM,  <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> Wrong. You only get easy renumbering if you give each physical
> location the same fixed length prefix. Every PoP should have
> its own /48 for all internal and infrastructure use. Even if
> it is only a rack in a colo, it is still a separate end site.
> You may someday move everything from that rack into its own
> building, and the /48 numbering scheme that you used from day
> one will make the move simple.
> There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses. Assigning a /48 to an
> end-site of any sort is fully justified in the HD ratio
> calculations, etc.

Why not /44, /52, or /56? Why in your master plan must this size be /48?

If your answer involves disaggregating locations from each other, I
refer to to NRPM 6.3.8.

More generally I'll point out that when organizations merge, divide,
consolidate and reorganize they tend to do so by a relatively
arbitrary combination of business function and customer scope, not by
physical location.

Bill Herrin

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 mailing list