[ppml] proposed updates to 2006-4
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
> 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