[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sat Apr 24 19:47:41 CDT 2010

On 04/22/2010 11:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Bill Bogstad <bogstad at pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>>>> So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep
>>>>> using globals that now aren't yours?
>>>> use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR.
>>> And don't forget to invest in memory manufacturers and router vendors :-)
>> Only required if those addresses are advertised to the Internet.
>> Which is apparently NOT
>> what people want to do with it.   In addition, it seems like the RIRs
>> frown on not publishing your IPv6 PI allocations.  If you go this
> this is commonly held up as a reason that getting allocations is hard,
> but the infrastructure micro-allocations are never to be seen in the
> global table.
> It woudl be super nice if some kind RIR people could comment here, I
> believe in the ARIN region all you NEED to do is provide a spreadsheet
> showing your utilization, checking for the routes in the 'DFZ'
> (bmanning-summons) isn't relevant for additional requests.
>> route, be sure to 'justify' as large an allocation as you could ever
>> possibly imagine using because you'll only get one bite from that
>> apple.
> see previous comment, I believe this is a red-herring.

An entity that I worked for in the arin recieved an ip6 micro-allocation
(/43) under current arin policy. it was our understanding at the time
that that was current the criterion for additional assignments.
while  I could imagine other criterion for being applied the assignment
of 4,771 /56 prefixes doesn't seem particularly onerous to document,
even if as it happens, it's not particularly aligned with the initial
assignment policy which was tied to the number of /48 site subnets that
were assigned.

>> Or maybe someone could offer to advertise these deliberately
>> unreachable addresses for a small fee and then null route any stray
>> packets that happen to want to get
>> there.   Would this satisfy the letter (if not the spirit) for
>> justifying PI space?
> you still have to provide SWIP, RWHOIS or some other accounting of the
> usage (spreadsheet/csvfile seems to be historically acceptable)
> -chris
>> Bill Bogstad

More information about the NANOG mailing list