[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Owen DeLong]

>> I don't see the ARIN policy the same way you do.  I think it is equally
>> liberal to RFC 3177 and states that the summary is just that, a summary.
>> I don't see anything in the ARIN policy that says you MUST issue a /48
>> to such a subscriber, only that you can.
> 
>   Agreed.  And it would seem reasonable that definitive but still
> flexible set of criteria should be delineated as to when such
> an allocation when requested is justified and should be issued.
> 
I'm not so sure about that.  I think that leaving such delineation
up to the ISP is quite prudent at this time.  Personally, if we were
to codify it, then, the only codification I would accept would be
"on customer request".

> Also agreed here.  Still under what criterion such IDR assignments
> are made needs to be delineated...
> 
Why?  Why not leave it up to the ISP and customer to determine within
the constraints of the existing policy?

[snip] increasing SOHO users needing multiple space / possibly /56

> Also agreed here.  But it should be exacting as to form/language
> so that the policy is easily understood and far less subject to
> interpretation.
> 
I think that clarification would be good, but, I don't think that
codification is necessary or desirable at this time.  I think leaving
the decision between the LIR and end-site is the prudent approach right
now.

I agree that we should do what we can to make sure LIRs and end-sites
know what the policy allows and what options are available within the
policy.

Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050517/38d3fbbf/attachment.sig>