[ppml] proposed updates to 2006-4

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Fri Mar 31 13:49:04 EST 2006

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO <jdhoule at att.com>
>  Subject: RE: [ppml] proposed updates to 2006-4
>  Sent: 31 Mar '06 10:27
>  Andrew:
>     You sparked a thought...
>     This "reserve" concept is a little orthogonal to ARINs standard Mode
>  of Operating, isn't it?   

Yes & no...the IPv4 practice used to be if you were assigned a /19 ARIN reserved a /18 for about 1-2 years.  (I don't know if that is current practice.)  If you came back to ARIN within the reserve window you then were assigned the larger block which would be aggregatable. 

>      Why doesn't ARIN just allocate a large enough block in the aggregate
>  to the corporation.    Block size should be large enough that most (95%
>  maybe) corporations will never need to come back to the ARIN trough.  I
>  don't know if a /40 or a /44 or whatever is that size.

If I understand you correctly you are suggesting a minimum assignment size of /40 or /44 for every PI assignment?

>      Keeping ARIN allocations above the "site-level size" keeps open the
>  opportunity for maintaining some level of aggregation in the IPv6 global
>  routing tables.  

Others would likely argue that providing larger assignments opens up the possibility for more de-aggregation.

My attempt with the 2006-4 policy was to try and limit the number of prefixes assigned per ORG/ASN to one.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list