[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 07:33:47PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> As such, please only keep it to:
> * /64 - Site really ever needing only a single subnet (eg a colo link).
> * /56 - Site with a low number of subnets (eg a residential user)
> * /48 - Site with a high number of subnets (eg a business/organization)

Here's the problem.  When a provider comes back to ask for more
IPv6 space, or is audited, or even puts in their intial request how
is ARIN staff supposed to evaluate "a low number" of subnets.  Is
that 2?  50?  50,000?

The current policy has two problems.

1) It states the sizes are only a guideline.  Thus ARIN staff is pretty
   much forced to accept a /48 for everything, including a dial-up PC.

2) The current policy, even if it were not a guideline, uses the same
   vague langugage.

I thought an HD-Ratio of .25 was generous, however if the community
wants it to be .10, or .01 I'm fine with that too.  I just feel
strongly that ARIN staff be given a measureable critera rather than
a amazingly vague "guideline".

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070817/4d363eff/attachment.sig>