Some advice on IPv6 planning and ARIN request, please
nanog at jima.us
Fri Jul 7 17:33:49 CST 2017
On 2017-07-07 11:07, Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
> We would prefer to summarize at the /42 level, announced from our last-mile
> providers. There are 3 primary last-mile providers so this strategy would
> help significantly reduce the number of global routes being injected. If we
> split regions evenly at /42 and if we follow the /48-per-site best practice
> (which I believe is justifiable in our situation - see below), Region A
> will be at 50% usage immediately. Adding 16 more sites brings it to 75%
> usage in only a few years. The other regions would be at ~33% usage (Region
> B) and 15% usage (Region C) and will see moderate growth in 3-5 years.
> Cloud will initially be at 2-4% usage (Region D) but will also grow quickly
> within 3-5 years.
If you're backhauling each region (even effectively via your upstream),
I'd take a look/listen to these two slides:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWJZfShWE6g&t=12m46s (Honestly, that
entire video is worth watching if you're preparing to make your initial
IPv6 PI space request -- it's a very informative presentation, and is
Net-net, if "hub 1" is supporting 30-ish sites, with projected growth to
46-ish, you could possibly make the case for allocating a /40 per hub,
and a /38 (or maybe even /36) overall. (There's only one /38 assignment
in ARIN region, FWIW.)
> I feel the /48 site default is justifiable because of the various
> applications and services that are currently, or could likely be offered at
If it's a site, /48 is justified as per ARIN requirements, period.
> I think the ideal situation is out as ARIN policy wouldn't allow them to
> assign us a /36 at this time. Unless someone knows something that can help
> us here.
Might. I'd file the request, as long as you have a logical addressing
plan to justify it.
More information about the NANOG