Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 26, 2010, at 7:43 AM, Tim Durack wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
> > some of what you're saying (tim) here is that you could: (one of these)
> >
> > 1) go to all your remote-office ISP's and get a /48 from each
> > 2) go to *RIR's and get /<something> to cover the number of remote
> > sites you have in their region(s)
> > 3) keep on keepin' on until something better comes along?
>
> This isn't really for remote offices, just our large campus sites.
>
> > 2)
> >  o justification in light of 'unclear' policies for an address block
> > of the right size. NOTE:I don't think the policies is unclear, but
> > that could be my misreading of the policies.
>
> For me, this seems unclear:
>
> 6.5.4.2. Assignment of multiple /48s to a single end site
> When a single end site requires an additional /48 address block, it
> must request the assignment with documentation or materials that
> justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional /48s will be
> processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR
> level.
> Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment
> of multiple /48s to the same end site. Having the RIR review all such
> assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some
> experience has been gained and some common policies can be developed.
> In addition, additional work at defining policies in this space will
> likely be carried out in the near future.
I think that is one of the things that is likely to get significantly clarified
(and largely eliminated) if any of several current policy proposals are
adopted.  Anyone here who has an opinion on this should probably
subscribe to the ARIN PPML and review the policy proposals under
discussion.  Your comments would be most useful in determining
the best course of action.

> >  o will your remote-office's ISP's accept the /48's per site? (vz/vzb
> > is a standout example here)
>
> Not too worried about VZ. Given that large content providers are
> getting end-site address space, I think they will have to adjust their
> stance.
:-)

> >  o will your remote-office's have full reachability to the parts of
> > the network they need access to? (remote ISP's filtering at/above the
> > /48 boundary)
>
> Remote offices aren't included in this plan.
If you have them, they should be.
>
Owen