IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

Wed Oct 27 14:07:49 UTC 2010

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 <jcurran at arin.net>
> Date: October 18, 2010 2:55:49 PM EDT
> To: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at 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 <jcurran at arin.net>
> Date: October 18, 2010 8:14:18 PM EDT
> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog at 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
> 