John, Thank you very much. That clarification helps out quite a bit.
-Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President, IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (419)739-9240, x1 ---- ----- Original Message ----- > 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