On Oct 18, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > Unfortunately, it is not as easy as that in practice. > > I recently worked with a customer that has ~60,000 customers currently. We > tried to get a larger block, but were denied. ARIN said they would only issue > a /32, unless immediate usage could be shown that required more than that. > Their guidelines also state /56 for end-users. I am a big proponent of nibble > boundaries, too. I think if you are too big to use only a /32, you should get > a /28, /24, and so forth. It would make routing so much nicer to deal with. > /31 and such is just nasty. > ARIN policy allows for a /48 per end user. There are guidelines included in the policy that allow for a /56 per end-user, but, they are explicitly called out as just guidelines, not policy.
I am working on changing the ARIN policy (I've currently circulated a draft to some co-authors and expect to be posting it to pol...@arin.net and p...@arin.net within the next couple of weeks) along the lines you mention. I think that IPv4think is a largely temporary problem, but, it is a problem even at the RIRs. Owen > > -Randy > > -- > | Randy Carpenter > | Vice President, IT Services > | Red Hat Certified Engineer > | First Network Group, Inc. > | (419)739-9240, x1 > ---- > > ----- Original Message ----- >> This 'get a /32' BAD ADVICE has got to stop. There are way too many >> people >> trying to force fit their customers into a block that is intended for >> a >> start-up with ZERO customers. >> >> Develop a plan for /48 per customer, then go to ARIN and get that size >> block. Figure out exactly what you are going to assign to customers >> later, >> but don't tie your hands by asking for a block that is way too small >> to >> begin with. Any ISP with more than 30k customers SHOULD NOT have a >> /32, and >> if they got one either trade it in or put it in a lab and get a REAL >> block. >> >> Tony >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Brandon Kim [mailto:brandon....@brandontek.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 1:59 PM >>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>> Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption >>> >>> >>> Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth >>> of >>> information. >>> >>> Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks >>> for that correction.... >>> >>> Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend! >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: rdobb...@arbor.net >>>> To: nanog@nanog.org >>>> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 +0000 >>>> Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where >>>>> the >>> most cuurent if not helpful information resides. >>>> >>>> >>>> Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as >>>> well, >>> in combination with Schudel & Smith's infrastructure security book >>> (the >>> latter isn't IPv6-specific, but is the best book out there on >>> infrastructure security): >>>> >>>> <http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587055945> >>>> >>>> <http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587053365> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> -- >>>> Roland Dobbins <rdobb...@arbor.net> // >>>> <http://www.arbornetworks.com> >>>> >>>> Sell your computer and buy a guitar. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> =
