Minimum IPv6 size

Sun Oct 4 23:49:22 UTC 2009

> From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:32:44 -0700
> 
> On 03/10/2009 8:19, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
> > regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
> > and give back the /32?  Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead.
> > Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
> > range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
> > range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
> > a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
> 
> I think ARIN proposal 2009-5
> (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html) is designed to cope with
> the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the
> meeting in Dearborn.

I don't think so. I believe the statement is not in regard to separate,
discrete networks bu to a network with a national footprint which must
deaggregate to do traffic engineering by region. Item 2 clearly makes
2009-5 non-applicable to this case.

This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG
in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings?
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751