> On Nov 28, 2021, at 15:51 , Mark Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 29 Nov 2021, at 09:41, scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/28/2021 9:47 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>>> Why not properly assign /48s to customers and /40s to cities?
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Side note: I recently tried to get /48 per customer with ARIN on repeated
>> emails and they refused. We were already given an IPv6 block a while back.
>> I told them I wanted to expand it so I could give out a /48 per customer and
>> that we had more than 65535 customers, which is the block we got; 65535
>> /48s. I didn't even account for our needs.
>>
>> Without arguing the reasons, we will have to hand out /56s, rather than /48s
>> because of this. So, it's not all /48-unicorns, puppies and rainbows.
>>
>> scott
>
> Looks like a policy omission. You should be able to grow the per customer
> allocation up to /48 per customer.
> One shouldn’t be stuck with /56 because one made a bad choice of prefix size
> initially.
There is definitely something wrong here… Policy clearly states that you should
be able to obtain an allocation large enough to provide /48s to all your
customers if you so choose.
In fact, it is generally quite generous beyond that point.
Owen
