On 2017-07-07 11:07, Oliver O'Boyle wrote:
We would prefer to summarize at the /42 level, announced from our last-mile providers. There are 3 primary last-mile providers so this strategy would help significantly reduce the number of global routes being injected. If we split regions evenly at /42 and if we follow the /48-per-site best practice (which I believe is justifiable in our situation - see below), Region A will be at 50% usage immediately. Adding 16 more sites brings it to 75% usage in only a few years. The other regions would be at ~33% usage (Region B) and 15% usage (Region C) and will see moderate growth in 3-5 years. Cloud will initially be at 2-4% usage (Region D) but will also grow quickly within 3-5 years.
If you're backhauling each region (even effectively via your upstream), I'd take a look/listen to these two slides: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWJZfShWE6g&t=12m46s (Honestly, that entire video is worth watching if you're preparing to make your initial IPv6 PI space request -- it's a very informative presentation, and is fairly authoritative.) Net-net, if "hub 1" is supporting 30-ish sites, with projected growth to 46-ish, you could possibly make the case for allocating a /40 per hub, and a /38 (or maybe even /36) overall. (There's only one /38 assignment in ARIN region, FWIW.)
I feel the /48 site default is justifiable because of the various applications and services that are currently, or could likely be offered at hotels.
If it's a site, /48 is justified as per ARIN requirements, period.
I think the ideal situation is out as ARIN policy wouldn't allow them to assign us a /36 at this time. Unless someone knows something that can help us here.
Might. I'd file the request, as long as you have a logical addressing plan to justify it. Jima