[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:12:50PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> Yes. It seems that IPv6 addresses are scarce resources which must be
> carefully managed.
> 
> Or perhaps it is another example of IPv4 thinking being applied where it
> is not needed.

I am happy to amend the proposal to be "may assign a /48 to every
site" (heck, make it a /32 for every site) if that's what the
community wants.  Incidently, this is the only way I can see ARIN
staff really standing on the current policy, since what is in the
NRPM is "here are guidelines".

Back to my original point, all I care is that ARIN staff have solid
guidelines.  Since we use HD Ratio everywhere else in IPv6 policy
I used that hammer and set the bar at .25.  I thought allowing a
site that needed only 16 subnets to have 65,536 was within IPv6's
spirit of "enough address to last forever".

-- 
       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/20070817/500694a6/attachment.sig>