Without making a policy proposal, (yet), it might make sense to have a suggestion to ARIN that if it *does* end up allocating multiple /28s from one /24 intermediate, that the /24 be regionally reserved so that all sub-blocks are physically nearby and could collaborate on a cooperative /24 global announcement and internal side split-out...
-george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > I will attempt to clarify this once more... > > When I wrote the policy which created this set-aside space, it was, as Bill > has said, intended as a hedge to provide minimal resources for organizations > that are unable to obtain larger IPv4 blocks through any normal mechanism > (standard allocation/assignment, transfer, market, etc.) and desperately need > some space which they can hopefully get routed to support the bare minimum > IPv4 connectivity for their IPv6 environment. > > I expect that if use of these blocks does become necessary, then routing them > will almost certainly be the least of the problems we face in that > circumstance. > > It is my sincere hope that we come to our senses and implement IPv6 > sufficiently that these blocks are never needed. However, as the saying goes, > I am hoping for the best and planning for the worst. The ARIN community > overwhelmingly supported this idea at the time and that is why we set aside > the block in question. > > In answer to Tore's statement, this block does not apply the standard > justification criteria and I think you would actually be quite hard pressed > to justify a /24 from this prefix. In most cases, it is expected that these > would be the IPv4 address pool for the public facing IPv4 side of a NAT64 or > 464xlat service. Most organizations probably only need one or two addresses > and so would receive a /28. It is expected that each of these addresses > likely supports several thousand customers in a service provider environment. > > Owen > > >> On Jan 31, 2014, at 7:38 PM, Bryan Socha <br...@serverstack.com> wrote: >> >> has it be clarified by arin on why they are going to allocate /28s? seems >> a faster way to waste ipv4 space with unusable ip addresses? The only >> thing I can think of is micro allocations for IX points. >> >> *Bryan Socha* >> Network Engineer >> 646.450.0472 | *br...@serverstack.com <br...@serverstack.com>* >> >> *ServerStack* | Scale Big >> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:58 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson <t...@fud.no> wrote: >>>> What I fail to understand from this thread is the apparent expectation >>>> that these smaller-than-/24 microscopic delegations from ARIN will be >>>> popular. >>> >>> Hi Tore, >>> >>> There is every expectation that they will be unpopular. They're a >>> hedge against the possibility of a grueling last-minute IPv6 >>> conversion following a failed IPv4 market. They're something that can, >>> with difficulty, be made to work. They serve no other purpose. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Bill Herrin >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us >>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> >>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >
