[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8
On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
> On 11/16/10 12:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
>>> I'd like to thank these gentlemen for including love for the x-small ISPs out there. We love you guys.
>>> Question, section 126.96.36.199 (d) dealing with End Sites larger than /48, says "(they shall) count as the appropriate number of /48s that would be assigned under that policy." is that
>>> number to be counted towards the total number of End Sites that is then rounded up to the next nibble boundary? Or should the End Site assignment be on the nibble boundary (16
>>> /48's, 256 /48's, etc.) before adding to the total number of end sites per serving site?
>> Assuming that 2010-8 is adopted as is, the end site would receive a nibble boundary assignment and that nibble
>> boundary would be counted for purposes of this policy. If, for example, such an end site received a /44, then, under
>> this policy they would count as 16 /48s fully utilized.
> Because 6.5.8 doesn't seem to mention assignment on nibble boundaries (though I could have missed it), perhaps:
> (d) For purposes of the calculation in (c), an end site which can justify more than a /48 under the end-user assignment criteria in 6.5.8 shall count as the least multiple of 4
> that can contain the size of the assignment under that policy.
6.5.8 does not mention it. It depends, instead, on the end-user assignment policy. This is done to ensure that
ARIN and LIRs are assigning blocks to end users from identical policy, including future changes to that
policy. It allows for consistency of policy maintained in a single place.
2010-8 provides for nibble alignment in end-user policy. Current end-user policy does not provide for
nibble alignment. I support 2010-8 and hope that it will be sent to last call shortly.
I'd like to avoid putting end-user policy snippets in the ISP Allocation policy if possible because I think
it confuses matters. However, if you still think this is a concern, let me know and I will attempt to address
>>> Some minor language suggestions included inline below. No change in meaning is intended. The only intention is to make meaning more clear and language more precise. Please let
>>> me know publicly if my suggestions imply that I'm misunderstanding your meaning. I noted my edits with pound (#) signs, hopefully facilitating visibility.
>> Thanks... Comments inline.
>> (There weren't any changes suggested beyond this point).
> apologies, I should have snipped at that point myself and save you from having to scan for further edits.
No worries... The ### notation made it pretty easy to search. ;-)