quietly....

Wed Feb 2 04:32:24 UTC 2011

Not necessarily.

There was a proposal passed at ARIN and I have a similar one proposed for
APNIC where you can request a second allocation should you need it for a
variety of justification.

For example: disparate non-connected networks under a different AS's.

This is the one that is bothering me at the moment.

...Skeeve

--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
eintellego - The Experts that the Experts call
- Juniper - HP Networking - Cisco - Brocade - Arista -

On 2/02/11 3:05 PM, "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 7:46 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 03:09:50 GMT, John Curran said:
>>> We had a small ramp up in December (about 25% increase) but that is
>>>within
>>> reasonable variation. Today was a little different, though, with 4
>>>times
>>> the normal request rate... that would be a "rush".
>>
>> Any trending on the rate of requests for IPv6 prefixes?
>
>More interesting would be re-requests - organizations exhausting an
>initial allocation and requiring more.  People asking for the first
>one just indicates initial adoption rates.
>
>Other than experimental blocks, I am generally under the impression
>that IPv6 allocations are designed to avoid that being necessary for
>an extended period of time.  If that is not true, then that's a flag.
>
>
>-- 
>-george william herbert
>george.herbert at gmail.com
>