[ppml] IPv6 Assignment Guidelines, Straw Man #2

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Aug 20 14:57:45 EDT 2007

In a message written on Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 07:47:17PM +0100, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> It's that kind of weasel-wording that I object to. The words "up to"
> make this wording directly contradict RFC 3177. The addition of a /56
> size for consumer sites is a minor change to the IPv6 addressing
> architecture which has support within the IETF. But your statement about
> /128's etcetera is in direct contradiction to the IPv6 architecture.

Are you saying the policy should lock it down in both directions?

"LIR's will assign a /56 to residential users, nothing bigger,
nothing smaller.  LIR's will assign a /48 to enterprise users,
nothing bigger, nothing smaller?"

My wording contradicts nothing in RFC 3177.  You can follow RFC
3177 and 100% comply with ARIN policy with my wording.  You can
also not follow 3177, do other things and comply with my wording.
Is that too permissive?

       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/20070820/192e00e7/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list