Re: Minimum IPv6 size

[Leo Vegoda]

On 04/10/2009 4:49, "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> wrote:

[...]

>>> So, if I need to break up my /32 into 4 /34s to cover different geographical
>>> regions, I should instead renumber into a new range set aside for /34s
>>> and give back the /32?  Sure seems like a lot of extra overhead.
>>> Perhaps we should give everyone an allocation out of each filter
>>> range, so that they can simply number from the appropriately-classed
>>> range; when you apply for space, you'd get a /32, a /33, a /34, a /35,
>>> a /36, etc. all from the appropriate, statically defined ranges.
>> 
>> I think ARIN proposal 2009-5
>> (https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_5.html) is designed to cope with
>> the situation you describe. I understand that it's on the agenda for the
>> meeting in Dearborn.
> 
> I don't think so. I believe the statement is not in regard to separate,
> discrete networks bu to a network with a national footprint which must
> deaggregate to do traffic engineering by region. Item 2 clearly makes
> 2009-5 non-applicable to this case.

I thought that "Geographic distance and diversity between networks" covered
the case above but I could well be wrong.

> This issue will be discussed in a Mark Kosters moderated panel at NANOG
> in Dearborn. Hey, why not attend both meetings?

I won't be there in person but look forward to watching the video feed.

Regards,

Leo