[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Thu Nov 18 14:50:27 EST 2010


I strongly support (in case I wasn't clear previously).

On 11/18/2010 1:15 PM, lar at mwtcorp.net wrote:
>
> While a /32 at first glance looked like way more addresses than we needed,
> when I started engineering the network into my locations it quickly
> became clear that /48 was out for all but my largest business
> customers. /56 or /60's are all I could manage for SOHO and residential
> customers
> and still have a reasonably manageable network.
>

We had the same problem. While you can do a do-over and get larger than 
/32 easy enough now, there are many other gaping holes in the existing 
policy. I believe that this policy does well to try and keep ARIN from 
having to create interpretations (policy doesn't really state, so we 
don't do it).


Jack



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list