It would be nice as a start, but does not really take into consideration future expansion needs.
I would think that you could draw some parallels, though. Something like: v4 /16 ~ v6 /32 v4 /12 ~ v6 /28 v4 /8 ~ v6 /24 I know it we don't want to equate v4 and v6, but it may help as a guideline for the size of the customer base. -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President, IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (419)739-9240, x1 ---- ----- Original Message ----- > I think APNIC has a policy that defines the minimum IPv6 allocation > based on your current IPv4 allocation/usage. This would fix the > problem? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcar...@network1.net> > To: "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 6:31:18 AM > Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated? > > > I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries. > > My personal opinion is that it should be even more sparse, and that > allocations should be done on nibble boundaries. Any reasonably-sized > ISP should get at least a /28. > > I deal with many small-ish ISPs, and most are 5,000-10,000 users. > Those are probably served by a /32 for quite some time. When you get > into the ones that are 20,000-50,000, it gets tricker to deal with. > Those should get a /28. The mega-ISPs should get a /24, or even a /20. > > Another problem is that the allocations from IANA to the RIRs are too > small to begin with. If there are 5 RIRs, why does there have to be so > much fragmentation? It is too late for that, though. > > Anyway, I think there are some proposals floating around (Owen? ;-) ) > That would make the /32,/28,/24 (nibble boundary) idea into policy. > We'll have to wait and see what happens.
