Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN

Mikael Abrahamsson swmike at
Wed Jan 26 00:30:50 CST 2011

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Tony Hain wrote:

> Every organization with a *real* customer base should have significantly 
> shorter than a /32. In particular every organization that says "I can't 
> give my customers prefix length X because I only have a /32" needs to go 
> back to ARIN today and trade that in for a *real block*. There should be 
> at least 10 organizations in the ARIN region that qualify for a /20 or 
> shorter, and most would likely be /24 or shorter.

+1 on this.

We returned our /32 that we received back in 2002 or so, and after proper 
application received a /25 where I believe we have up to /22 reserved for 
us in case we need it.

We hope we're not going to have to pollute the DFZ with more than a single 
entry in the forseeable future.

To everybody who thinks we need to conserve addresses, please consider 
this current allocation policy (/48 and /56) as something we'll do for the 
first /3 in use, when we exhaust that, we need to really look at what 
we're doing and look if we need to change the policy for the other /3:s. 
We have 7 more tries to go before we exhaust the whole IPv6 space.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at

More information about the NANOG mailing list