[ppml] Policy regarding subnets smaller than /64
sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Nov 16 17:39:04 EST 2007
Brian Dickson wrote:
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> 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
> Yes. The analogous kind of thing would be the ability to assign down
> to a /29 in IPv4.
> Registration of what is used, can be important for all of the things
> that go along with registration, e.g. different abuse contacts,
> technical contacts, etc.
Ok, so you basically want to be able to SWIP (reassign to customers)
prefixes longer than /64?
I don't think that is necessary, and feel that it would have enough
negative side effects to be something we don't want to encourage.
Consider a monopolistic telco, for example, who likes to artificially
differentiate and charge more for "value-added" services. If they are
allowed to do so, they may wish to assign /124s to all their customers,
on the assumption that if you have more than 16 hosts, you obviously
need a more expensive tier of service. This would stifle innovation at
the edge, precluding the use of HBA, CGA, or autoconfiguration. I think
the current guidelines are much more appropriate, encouraging /56's for
residential users, /64 for networks with known single-subnet needs, and
allowing everyone who wants a /48 to get one.
In my opinion, if you have different organizations, different contacts,
etc. for different networks, there's no real reason not to give a
different /64, /56, or /48 to each org as needed.
> Ditto delegation of ip6.arpa reverse mappings on the nibble boundary,
> below the /64 level (not sure if this is an issue, but just want to
> list it as something necessary for such assignments.)
I'm pretty sure this can be done today.
More information about the ARIN-PPML