North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Assigning IPv6 /48's to CPE's?

  • From: Christopher Morrow
  • Date: Wed Jan 02 00:37:24 2008
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=49X0eTJo+vibMPIyUx3EGQzo+JifWzBrzqbeAM/76ks=; b=KyhSamrv1FDmKlLIHzLUxYT9qq9d14qMHHo5xAihgcjfrZnRgR4OYZiavTAcn7+qtmE0jgQ6T93CigCNIe78hpKwLqpAeHiH+RJ0KyKD1EIjNAbPeM+t6GK93melrnbJY963OPvQtnxAQ2Ip1UAGHZnKTYn8T2VzcfVxw+DS1nY=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=yGGS7At0+SYXCQJJSQUDp/A6Tj4A2cggynHR3epNp32zscwj3hJWtBlG63asOhSTGhwiEY0nmGzHlyL4cpBYOHGD/V7PcPeIV3meL9W970QZDzXqRUxaWZeAS93ehVzhzGI+7rdIa7LXmQl+2InA590pcdiUMWq5zrwmo7EZBsI=

On Jan 1, 2008 12:46 PM, James Hess <[email protected]> wrote:

> The place where major problems could be run into is deciding how big a
> block your ISPs and
> LIRs get, or if the registries are entertaining the concept of  PI
> space for v6.. how large

too late NRO policy comparison chart:

http://www.nro.net/documents/nro45.html#3-4-3

Specifically APNIC and ARIN have /48 end-user assignments (PI)
policies in place, RIPE is still discussing this policy as of the last
meeting (if I recall correctly).


> those blocks are.  Does a small ISP ever get such a small block that
> they may run out of /48s
> to assign?

Sure, if they mis-plan or over-sell or acquire a competitor... there
are many scenarios that could include this sort of event.

>
> Does a large ISP ever get such a large block, the RIRs may run out of
> ISP blocks to assign?
>

At one point DISA/DoD was looking to get a /10 from <SOME RIR> ... I
don't that went anywhere, or is still under discussion. That'd
certainly make a dent in the available space though, eh?

> to networks, which is very bad:  design of IPv6 is supposed to avoid
> such things.

The initial design requirements/assumptions you mean, most of which
don't apply to today's world?

>
> In the latter case... IPv6  IP addresses have not been 'exhausted',
> but now, there can now
> be no new ISPs or PI allocations;  everything having been assigned to
> some major provider
> who has not given out very many of their /48s  yet,
>
> or who is giving out /56s  and hording the rest of the address space,
> never to be assigned.....
>

ah, just like in ipv4 come mid-2010 ? wither ipv8?

-Chris