Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?

[John Curran <jcurran () arin net>]

On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> I think ARIN is now doing sparse allocations on /28 boundaries.

Yes (two NANOG messages attached from earlier this month)
/John

Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
> Date: October 18, 2010 2:55:49 PM EDT
> To: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
> Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:18 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > On Oct 18, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > > ARIN does reservations (unsure at what length, but at least down to /31).
> >
> > Do they still do that?  Back when I was at IANA, one of the justifications the RIRs gave for the /12s they received 
> > was that they were going to be using the 'bisection' method of allocation which removes the need for reservation.  
> > Last I heard, APNIC was using the bisection method...
>
> ARIN is doing the same (the 'bisection' method) with our IPv6 management 
> since January 2010: we refer to the "sparse allocation" approach and it 
> was requested by the community during the ARIN/NANOG Dearborn meeting.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN


Begin forwarded message:

> From: John Curran <jcurran () arin net>
> Date: October 18, 2010 8:14:18 PM EDT
> To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption - Sparse IPv6 allocation
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> > I have a few customers whose allocations are /29 away from their nearest neighbor (half a nibble). That seems a 
> > little close considering there is a lot of talk about doing nibble boundaries, and there doesn't seem to be 
> > consensus yet.
> >
> > For these customers, I don't think they will need more than a /29, but if we collectively decide that a /28 is the 
> > next step from a /32, how will the older allocations be dealt with?  This is pretty much a rhetorical question at 
> > this point, and I suppose the proper thing to do is to channel these questions toward the PPML for discussion as 
> > potential policy.
>
> Just for reference regarding existing IPv6 sparse practice:
>
> Our current plan is to use the sparse allocation block (currently a /14)
> until we fill it up.  Bisection done at the /28 boundary which leaves a
> fairly large reserve.
>
> If an organization needs an allocation larger than a /28, we have set 
> aside a /15 block for those larger ISPs.
>
> The orgs that already have allocations (/32s from /29s) also have a 
> reserve.  If they need additional space, they can either request from 
> their /29 reserve, or if they need more than a /29, can request a new 
> block.
>
> Obviously, this can be changed if the community wishes it so. Bring
> any obvious suggestions to the ARIN suggestion process, and anything
> which might be contentious or affect allocations to the policy process.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN