[ppml] 2005-1 status

william(at)elan.net william at elan.net
Mon Jan 30 16:52:18 EST 2006

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> cja at daydream.com wrote:
>>> I have a question.. with regard to item
>>>            Have an IPv4 assignment or allocation directly from an
>>> RIR,
>>>            the IANA or legacy registry
>>>           Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN
>>> under
>>>            the IPv4 policy currently in effect
>>> do you really mean an assignment or allocation under ANY policy in
>>> effect?  If an org has a micro allocation from ARIN of some very
>>> small
>>> size they should still qualify for a /44?  I am not passing any
>>> judgement here I am just curious.
>> The main intent was to not require someone to actually request IPv4
>> if they qualify for it.  It was not my intent that micro-allocations
>> would qualify though it appears that they would as currently written.
> If /22 is under 2002-3 is considered microallocation, then, I believe
> such organizations should absolutely qualify.  If we're talking about
> some other microallocation policy, then, we should be careful about
> how we word any changes.

Microallocations for exchange points, root/TLD dns servers and similar
are already available for IPv6 under different micro-allocation policy,
so its not an issue here.

The issue that some seems to have raised is in regards to giving ipv6
micro-allocation blocks to those who received legacy class-c blocks
when those were readily available. I believe its fair to request these
organizations to justify and one of those justification should be if
they are in fact using those legacy blocks in multihomed fashion or not.

William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william at elan.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list