[ppml] Policy regarding subnets smaller than /64
sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Nov 16 16:15:47 EST 2007
Brian Dickson wrote:
> The problem I'm illustrating is the hammer/nail problem.
> If it is not *possible* to do any kind of bit-mapped plan, then we are
> not supporting those who *might* choose to (or need to) do so.
Ok. I'm not opposed to allowing the use of subnets longer/smaller than
/64, although I do oppose your earlier policy proposal to encourage it
via ARIN guidelines.
> This is neither about encouraging, nor about requiring, a particular
> plan. It is about *allowing* it, by providing the essential tools to
> support it.
> The only tool needed, currently, is the ability to register
> allocations >/64 - something I perceive the current policy to
> prohibit. (And now we stray into discussions about policy, rather than
> about the use cases.)
Ok, let's discuss the policy then, as this is the public policy mailing
IMO it's entirely appropriate to use subnets smaller/longer than /64 for
certain use cases, like the one you outlined. I do not believe it is
appropriate to allocate anything smaller/longer than a /64 to a
downstream customer, as doing so limits their ability to grow as
needed. In order to support your subnetting scheme, I believe an LIR
should reassign an appropriately sized netblock (/64, /56, or /48), and
the recipient network should subnet that assignment as needed to support
their need for variably-sized subnets. If they don't need an entire
/64, then they can reserve the rest of it for future growth.
What other "essential tools" do you believe are missing from current policy?
More information about the ARIN-PPML