Yes, you are stuck in IPv4 ways. If you have an independent network with a unique routing policy and you allocate IPv6 addresses to the customers who connect to your network, then you are clearly an ISP and should get a /32. If you have some network infrastructure in another continent that does not randomly route traffic across the ocean and back, then it has a unique routing policy, etc.

Why? A three /48 blocks take up just as much routing table space as

The main change from our ipv4 to a ipv6 network will seem more in the range of: we currently use a private class a range with local internet connectivity by nat, which in ipv6 we want to get rid of. That's why I'm looking into multiple address blocks because of multihoming and local POP. three /32 blocks.

More importantly, if you the ISP only have a /48 then you cannot assign /48 blocks to customers which is bad, bad, bad.

Well we are not a ISP. But as long as I can request a good address range per location by becoming a member I don't mind too much on the size of the block because (in all fairness) i don't think we will ever need more then a /48. But I'll leave those ipv4 ways behind me from now on and go with the flow.

The most important concept in IPv6 addressing that is different from IPv4 addressing, is that the IPv6 address space is very, .... very, very, very, big.

The second most important concept is that the subnetting architecture is designed to waste large amounts of address space. This "wasted" address space buys certain advantages. First, it means

Point taken :) that most subnets can grow for a long time without running out of addresses.

Also, there is no global policy that requires a network operator to get all of their global addresses from a single RIR, and there is also no global policy that requires them to get their addresses from each RIR in which they have network infrastructure. Just do whatever works best for your network. That is what other network operators have done in the past.

So to conclude: Ripe membership will (basically) give me a /32 per location no matter the number of users or location? Thanks, Ralph Peeters This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message. Thank you for your co-operation.

Hello,

As of today, RIPE membership will give you a single /32, tagged "PA" (to be used for ISP-alike networks and their customers).

I guess we can skip the ripe membership. I don't think we will need a single /32 that can only be advertised on one place.

No, of course not. That some people think that "There is enough IPv6" does not mean that you are going to trash away /32's. You should calculate for a /48 per site, that is already way too much in most cases.

Glad to see my thinking was right in the end, it just took me a while to ask the right question.

Are you ready to provide vendors C and J and others with big wads of cash? :) Thus please think about about the future. This is a nice hot research topic btw ;) Depending on the size of your individual locations, you might want to consider using a mixed strategy, though - use static space (PI) in the big (and/or multihomed) locations, and provider >space (PA) for the smaller offices. Yes, renumbering is work - but injecting extra routes in the global system causes global cost, so the tradeoff should be seriously considered.

There is a catch there indeed, that when you have your hugely popular webserver in the /48 from your site in Berlin and you have a nice 10GE connection there, but you have a site in Amsterdam >with only a measly 2mbit DSL link with their own /48, that theoretically you should be announcing that whole /32 in Amsterdam too if you want to connect up

Yeah, I don't wanna be responsible for breaking the internet (which would probably lead to riots at my doorstep including torches and pitchforks) :) But I think everyone realises that business goals come before the common good, even though we would like to see different. If PI space provides less risk it is easy to choose that way. there, which would suck the 10GE >traffic in Amsterdam over a 2mbit DSL link and then you would have to transport it to Berlin some way. The other solution would be to only announce the /32 in Berlin and then to transport the >2mbit of DSL back to Amsterdam which is the better one. I don't think we can lower the POP because of locations being in the same continent. It's obviously that everyone usually has their own isp and connectivity based upon needs. If it were only easy (fast/reliable) enough to transfer all our traffic to 1 endpoint on a continent before "going out" on the internet. My idea (based upon the input here) is that I should look at larger sites that need to be provider independent (and get them PI space) and at the smaller sites. --Ralph Peeters This message and attachment(s) are intended solely for use by the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or agent thereof responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone and with a 'reply' message. Thank you for your co-operation.