[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Charles Gucker]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Aaron Hughes <aaronh at bind.com> wrote:
> Personally, I really like the idea of following the nibbles better and not categorizing /32s as such small space. 15 regions of /36s (with one reserved for internal infrastructure) IMHO is not X-small. This also seems to be closer in alignment to the rest of the policy related to nibble round ups for justification. Additionally, the /36 (as a new minimum allocation) would allow those in X-small or Small categories to remain in the same price category while also having appropriately sized v6 allocations.
>
> (This, of course, would/should, grandfather those who received /32s (min allocation) and didn't really need that much, in the appropriate Small category)
>
> I would propose the following:
>
> X-small: /48 -> /35
> Small: /36 -> /31
> Medium: /32 -> /27
> Large: /28 -> /23
> X-large: /24 -> /19
> XX-large: /20 and larger

Aaron,

       Unfortunately you're putting the cart infront of the horse.
Once 2011-3 is adopted, we would have to deal with the /32 is the
minimum allocation size.    So, I don't think you would object holding
off on any block alterations until after 2011-3 is adopted (if it is
adopted).

charles