<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3157" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You
might find the following document that is working its way through IETF right now
useful. <A
href="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-05.txt">http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addcon-05.txt</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Also,
I would stick to getting IPv6 Allocations from the respective RIR. All the
same routing reasons still apply to IPv6 at this time as they do for IPv4.
Maybe architectural changes could occur in the future...but we are not there
yet.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Another one to read: <A
href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1519.txt">ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1519.txt</A> and
<A
href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3177.txt">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3177.txt</A>.
I thought there was another document for guidance to ISP's...but I cant seem to
find it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Cheers!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906073816-04092007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Marla</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> ppml-bounces@arin.net
[mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]<B>On Behalf Of
</B>cja@daydream.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, September 04, 2007 9:28
AM<BR><B>To:</B> michael.dillon@bt.com<BR><B>Cc:</B>
ppml@arin.net<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ppml] IPv6 addressing
plans<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Michael,<BR><BR>I used to run a network that had
allocations from the (at the time) 3 RIRs. I did that on purpose for a
couple of reasons.<BR><BR>- The networks were connected in a way that it made
sense to have RIR based allocations <BR>- I wanted our networks and the
people who ran them to be active in the appropriate communities.
<BR>- The deployment schedules and address space utilization rates were
significantly different from region to region. If we had it all from ARIN we
probably would have had to have three separate allocations with different
maintainer IDs anyway. <BR><BR>I can tell you this. And I know
you're not going to believe me but it was much much easier to deal with ARIN's
policies than the policies of the other RIRs. We had a very small
allocation window size from RIPE and so if we wanted to assign a subnet
greater than a /29 to a customer we had to ask permission. Even when it
was raised to a /24 it was a total pain. Further there were some really
interesting requirements of cable providers in RIPE and APNIC that we had to
work with the communities to fix. That actually went very
smoothly. <BR><BR>We were certainly told that we could have all of our
allocations from ARIN because our company headquarters was in the US.
There were days that I wished I had done just that. I think we did
greatly benefit from being active in all the regions and knowing the regional
ISP communities was also a great benefit. <BR><BR>I hope this
helps. <BR>----Cathy<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 9/4/07, <B class=gmail_sendername><A
href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</A></B> <<A
href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com"> michael.dillon@bt.com</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Does
anyone have any reasoning why a network spanning two or more of the <BR>RIR
regions, should or should not get separate ISP allocations from
each<BR>region?<BR><BR>I'm not just interested in opinions, but also the
reasoning behind them,<BR>especially any technical pros and cons.<BR><BR>In
addition, are there any characteristics that define a good
IPv6<BR>addressing plan for a network operator?<BR><BR>We've just received
an IPv6 /22 from RIPE based solely on projections in<BR>our European network
infrastructure. Fairly soon we will have to decide <BR>whether to internally
assign chunks of that space to our North American<BR>network or to go to
ARIN for a separate IPv6 allocation based on North<BR>American needs
only.<BR><BR>I imagine that a number of other companies are in this position
and if <BR>there is actually a best practice for IPv6 addressing, it would
be good<BR>to document it and follow it before deployment gets much further
ahead.<BR>On the other hand, if it is a coin-toss scenario from a technical
point <BR>of view, it would be nice to see general acknowledgement of that
fact.<BR><BR>--Michael
Dillon<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>PPML<BR>You are
receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
<BR>Mailing List (<A
href="mailto:PPML@arin.net">PPML@arin.net</A>).<BR>Unsubscribe or manage
your mailing list subscription at:<BR><A
href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
</A>Please contact the ARIN Member Services<BR>Help Desk at <A
href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</A> if you experience any
issues.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>