[ppml] 2005-1 status

cja@daydream.com packetgrrl at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 11:19:45 EST 2006


On 1/24/06, Kevin Loch <kloch at hotnic.net> wrote:
>
> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
> > Noting that the v6 policy gives out /32 blocks to
> > LIRs, i.e. organizations that have an ironclad case
> > for PI space, I wonder why 2005-1 does not specify
> > a /32. Of course, the v6 policy also discusses
> > assigning /48 blocks to sites so if these v4 PI
> > holders are a single site, then /48 would be appropriate.
> > The existing policy only allows for shorter prefixes
> > like /44 in the case of VERY LARGE SUBSCRIBERS.
>
> We're proposing a new cagetory of assignments
> distinct from LIR's and simple end sites.  This would
> not change the existing policy for LIR's or simple
> end sites.
>
> I look at potential v6 PI holders as somewhere between
> simple end sites and LIR's.   They may
> be large organizations with multiple physical locations,
> assigning /48's to internal units.  Think of them
> as an "internal" LIR, justified by many physical locations.
> Others may be simple multihomed sites so assigning a /32
> would be wasteful.
>
> Another reason to make the minimum size larger than /48
> is to make it easy to distinguish between PI assignments
> and deaggregated PA /48's.  In the future that could be
> extremely useful.


We should be distingushing prefixes based on assignment block ranges not by
length of prefix.  Prefixes size should be decided based on appropriate
need, not on differentiating PA from PI based on prefix length.

---Cathy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060124/b58fb0ba/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list