Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 19, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 10/19/2010 4:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >
> > No... ARIN hands out a MINIMUM /32. A medium sized ISP should be asking for larger.
>
> ME: I really need larger space
> ARIN: We don't see how you can justify it, and we hardly ever give larger than /32
Did you send them a customer count exceeding about 25,000 customers and point out that
you were giving /48s to each of them? If you did, they would not have had a leg to stand on.

However, there has been a bit of a learning curve with ARIN staff and IPv6, so, there have
been some errant denials. I'm working on policy to further expand their ability to approve
larger allocations. Expect to see it posted in the next week or so.

> THE END
>
> > or, if you have larger POPs, start with a /24 and
> > /32 regional assignment supporting 256 regional assignments
> > /36 for 16 pops per region
> > /48 for 4,096 customer end-sites per POP
>
> Ideal solution, but don't see it happening
Why not?

> > ARIN thinks a /32 is the MINIMUM for an ISP. Not the Maximum. Several ISPs have received larger than /32 and all you 
> > need to do is show a reasonable justification for the space.
>
> See above. You think I asked for a /32? While I'd probably desire a /24 for ease of routing and management, I'd only 
> asked for a /31 and was turned down with the "Very few will get more than a /32."
When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest asking again. If it was less than 6
months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can address it with Leslie and try and
get whatever training issues remain resolved?

> Hey, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I asked too early, even though I purposefully delayed asking.
If ARIN is incorrectly denying requests, I'll definitely work on getting that resolved.

> and from your other reply:
>
> > Yep... Best not to argue with Jack... A much better strategy, IMHO, is to better serve his former customers.
>
> Good luck on that. My customers like my service and the lengths we go for them. Obviously, there are always those who 
> are discontent, but we listen to what they want and need, and we make it happen. Feel free to come to rural Oklahoma 
> and compete. The prefix rotation argument has been covered before, which is why I'd rather keep it to the original 
> argument and probably shouldn't have mentioned it since it always creates a side topic.
The beauty is that we don't have to come to rural OK to compete. We can just let them use whatever stingy amount
of address space you provide to get a tunnel to us.

Owen