[ppml] Policy regarding subnets smaller than /64

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Nov 16 16:32:32 EST 2007

Brian Dickson wrote:
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> Ok, let's discuss the policy then, as this is the public policy 
>> mailing list.  :-)
>> 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.
> As long as the ability to do assignments within the allocated block 
> below the /64 exist, I don't have a big problem with making a /64 the 
> smallest aggregate available for assignment.

I'm not sure I understand your first use of "assignment" there.  
Currently, there's nothing to stop you from *using* a longer prefix as a 
subnet.  Are you advocating for something more than that, like the 
ability to assign a network longer/smaller than /64 between organizations?

> (I do think it would be reasonable to assign longer prefixes, but I 
> acknowledge that those of us who feel that way are currently in the 
> minority, or are primarily lurkers on the ppml.)
>> What other "essential tools" do you believe are missing from current 
>> policy?
> None that I am aware of.
> Can anyone else think of requirements that would affect ARIN policy? 
> Or requirements of any kind?

I think this is one of those things where it's best for ARIN to provide 
each end network discretion as to how to use their addresses internally, 
so I'm pretty happy with the current policies.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list