[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Aaron Hughes]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:53:51PM -0400, Charles Gucker wrote:
> 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

While I agree with you, my opinion above still stands. I realize there are multiple proposals that would need to either be adopted or a new one drafted and passed, however, this thread is not about 1 specific policy proposal, it is about size categories. Obviously, I clearly believe /32 is the incorrect minimum allocation size. :)

I would not be in favor of modifying size categories without modifying minimum allocation, however, given no other choice I would support the change.

Cheers,
Aaron


-- 

Aaron Hughes 
aaronh at bind.com
+1-831-824-4161
Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8
http://www.bind.com/