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 02:11:32 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:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=PJIK16gbaM1WLQxuvGXiPCIHX5TuPf8o7OsDMb6rkwc=; b=UBjZjeJ5DNNegb2PNbitvooYOD2Gu1lSLEWJGFlVVjcA6tpIaxII7e9uqDZRPZHHnFtvxnz2P3PKnDkhZ+R6ojbHdqeTajDE+LsF0Xpci0XE6oTaqrDuQkAtCYUKQ2/XE7LNoSp88LiUoTW9CYFV6ku/HioENFNCJBEYo9g7nWs=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=wfeKLmEriFeNbuoaCEs6veaXNytDUaeTXE/j3KSAg4WIjvf06ORkj8SmjWJap0CUh7IiQEzUw+EogES3ArgeHQJ7/d2/63Af37TGRQ8+NDnt0ZwNsiM4oDw+zDxiyeHZqaAeFn5UArucBrAxQIMjYGn3XOsRmRITj6tssD+xRY0=

On Jan 2, 2008 12:35 AM, Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>

someone pointed out that the APNIC policy doc at:

http://www.apnic.net/policy/ipv6-address-policy.html

doesn't reflect the end-user PI assignment policy wording that appears
to be in the NRO link, perhaps someone from APNIC could clarify the
current state of affairs for us?

They also pointed out that I missed Afrinic in my listing... NRO
thinks that afrinic also does /48 end-user assignments... fyi.

> 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).
>