a rediculous IPv6 deployment that dind't actutally deploy IPv6

[George Bonser]

The way I read the story, they just were about of IPs in that region.
They probably route different chunks of the allocations to different
regions of the country/world and don't want to bust, say, and East coast
aggregate for a West coast assignment.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+gbonser=seven.com at lists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-
> ops-bounces+gbonser=seven.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Ted
> Mittelstaedt
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:12 PM
> To: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: a rediculous IPv6 deployment that dind't actutally deploy
> IPv6
> 
> On 2/17/2011 8:07 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/16/2011 7:38 PM, Mark Yarbrough wrote:
> >> NOC Guy: No, we just need to move some around and you are asking
for
> a
> >> lot.
> >
> > LOL, is it really that hard to add some IP addressing to the pool?
If
> > they are THAT low, they should have requested some more. Last I
> checked,
> > the RIR isn't out yet.
> >
> >
> > Jack
> 
> They may be past the utilization threshold in that one area but under
> it
> in many other areas.  Thus making them ineligible to obtain further
> resources.
> 
> When we got our block I split it up, intending to use one chunk in a
> planned future NOC.  That never happened, and that section utilization
> is 0%  Yet other sections of our utilization are almost full.
> 
> Reallocating that introduces uglification of the route tables. ;-)
> 
> Ted