[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs - Last Call

Steve Howard showard at paulbunyan.net
Thu Apr 28 10:04:23 EDT 2011


On 04/27/2011 02:39 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Howard <showard at paulbunyan.net> writes:
>     Steve> On 04/19/2011 04:03 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>     >> I have ISP customers who are right on the edge of a /32 being not
>     >> enough for any kind of expansion. (~60,000 users, ~20 POPs, and
>     >> plans to expand. They have tried to get larger than a /32 block,
>     >> but have been denied. Some are putting off IPv6 deployment
>     >> entirely, as they do not want to be in the same situation with
>     >> IPv6 that they are in IPv4 (having multiple separate blocks)
>     >> 
>     >> Some change in policy needs to be done ASAP to encourage
>     >> adoption. I would be happy with whatever is doable that would
>     >> align on nibble boundaries, and allow for ISPs in this size
>     >> category to get a /28 (which would almost certainly allow them to
>     >> never need another allocation)
>     Steve> I agree with Randy.
>     Steve> 2011-3 needs to move forward quickly.  The delay with 2011-3
>     Steve> is inhibiting our IPv6 implementation (and I presume
>     Steve> elsewhere).
>     Steve> If it is decided to delay 2011-3 or slice it into smaller
>     Steve> draft policies, we should at least allow /20, /24, and /28's
>     Steve> to be issued while the proposal finalization process
> Would these ISPs really announce a /20 as a single prefix announcement?
> I'm just curious: I'm not arguing they should or shouldn't.
Yes, in most cases.  However, I would really prefer to see 2011-3 move
forward immediately and avoid the /20, /24, and /28s alternative.  I
mentioned the alternative hoping that it would only be considered if
2011-3 was going to get delayed for some reason.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list