Policy allows any ISP (LIR) with need greater than /32 to easily qualify for what they need up to /12. I know of at least two entities that have applied for and with minimal effort and appropriate justification, received /24 allocations and many with /28s.
Owen > On Oct 9, 2014, at 07:00, Paige Thompson <paigead...@gmail.com> wrote: > > makes more sense to hand out /48s imho. theres only a mere 65k /48s per > /32 (or something like that), though. > > >> On 10/09/14 12:29, Mark Andrews wrote: >> In message <1aa6f1a9-d63b-4066-903d-0e8690c7c...@isi.edu>, manning bill >> writes: >>> yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing = >>> all that dark space, esp. when >>> virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land. >>> >>> >>> /bill >>> PO Box 12317 >>> Marina del Rey, CA 90295 >>> 310.322.8102 >> and if everyone hands out /48's you just filter /48's. With a mix of /56 >> and /48 you need to filter at the /56 level. Given enterpises are getting >> /48's it will be simpler overall for everyone to get /48's. >> >>>> On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> Give them a /48. This is IPv6 not IPv4. Take the IPv4 glasses off >>>> and put on the IPv6 glasses. Stop constraining your customers >>>> because you feel that it is a waste. It is not a waste!!!! It >>>> will also reduce the number of exceptions you need to process and >>>> make over all administration easier. >>>> =20 >>>> As for only two subnets, I expect lots of equipment to request >>>> prefixes in the future not just traditional routers. It will have >>>> descrete internal components which communicate using IPv6 and those >>>> components need to talk to each other and the world. In a IPv4 >>>> world they would be NAT'd. In a IPv6 world the router requests a >>>> prefix. >>>> =20 >>>> Mark >>>> =20 >>>> In message <495d0934da46854a9ca758393724d5906da...@ni-mail02.nii.ads>, = >>> Erik Sun >>>> dberg writes: >>>>> I am planning out our IPv6 deployment right now and I am trying to = >>> figure o=3D >>>>> ut our default allocation for customer LAN blocks. So what is = >>> everyone givi=3D >>>>> ng for a default LAN allocation for IPv6 Customers. I guess the idea = >>> of ha=3D >>>>> nding a customer /56 (256 /64s) or a /48 (65,536 /64s) just makes me = >>> cring=3D >>>>> e at the waste. Especially when you know 90% of customers will never = >>> have m=3D >>>>> ore than 2 or 3 subnets. As I see it the customer can always ask for = >>> more I=3D >>>>> Pv6 Space. >>>>> =20 >>>>> /64 >>>>> /60 >>>>> /56 >>>>> /48 >>>>> =20 >>>>> Small Customer? >>>>> Medium Customer? >>>>> Large Customer? >>>>> =20 >>>>> Thanks >>>>> =20 >>>>> Erik >>>>> =20 >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> =20 >>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, = >>> files =3D >>>>> or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential = >>> informa=3D >>>>> tion that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended = >>> recipient, or =3D >>>>> a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you = >>> are h=3D >>>>> ereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of = >>> any of =3D >>>>> the information contained in or attached to this transmission is = >>> STRICTLY P=3D >>>>> ROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please = >>> notify th=3D >>>>> e sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the = >>> origi=3D >>>>> nal transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any = >>> manne=3D >>>>> r. Thank you. >>>> --=20 >>>> Mark Andrews, ISC >>>> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia >>>> PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
