On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: > > I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.
Yes (two NANOG messages attached from earlier this month) /John Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> > Date: October 18, 2010 2:55:49 PM EDT > To: David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> > Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:18 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote: >>> ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31). >> >> Do they still do that? Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications >> the RIRs gave for the /12s they received was that they were going to be >> using the 'bisection' method of allocation which removes the need for >> reservation. Last I heard, APNIC was using the bisection method... > > ARIN is doing the same (the 'bisection' method) with our IPv6 management > since January 2010: we refer to the "sparse allocation" approach and it > was requested by the community during the ARIN/NANOG Dearborn meeting. > > FYI, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> > Date: October 18, 2010 8:14:18 PM EDT > To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation > > On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote: >> >> I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest >> neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a little close considering there is a >> lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be >> consensus yet. >> >> For these customers, I don't think they will need more than a /29, but if we >> collectively decide that a /28 is the next step from a /32, how will the >> older allocations be dealt with? This is pretty much a rhetorical question >> at this point, and I suppose the proper thing to do is to channel these >> questions toward the PPML for discussion as potential policy. > > Just for reference regarding existing IPv6 sparse practice: > > Our current plan is to use the sparse allocation block (currently a /14) > until we fill it up. Bisection done at the /28 boundary which leaves a > fairly large reserve. > > If an organization needs an allocation larger than a /28, we have set > aside a /15 block for those larger ISPs. > > The orgs that already have allocations (/32s from /29s) also have a > reserve. If they need additional space, they can either request from > their /29 reserve, or if they need more than a /29, can request a new > block. > > Obviously, this can be changed if the community wishes it so. Bring > any obvious suggestions to the ARIN suggestion process, and anything > which might be contentious or affect allocations to the policy process. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN >
