[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

[John Santos]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:29 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >> > Only the generality was
> >> > important to Ted's reminder that when providing ARIN allocations to
> >> > ISPs that find $2250/year challenging, "you consume the same amount of
> >> > routing resources on everyone else's BGP router on the Internet,"
> >> > regardless of the range of each address block announcement.
> >>
> >> That having been said, I have no objection to a policy change that
> >> allows ISPs to request the same block sizes as end users, so long as
> >> it's done in a way that doesn't make IPv6's TE (disaggregation)
> >> filterability worse that it already is.
> >
> > Can we count on the RSA to enforce allocations?  How about policy
> > to allow ARIN to allocate at /40 to an extra-small ISP at the
> > same price as it would for a /40 PI assignment (Hope I've got
> > "allocation" and "assignment" right :-),

Still a little confused here, though I don't think it matters...

The subject of this thread is "IPv6 /32 minimum..." which is where
I got the /32 & /40 in my example, but at least by 2010-7, it should
be /40 and /48...  Or maybe I'm still confused..

> 
> Actually, I'm a fan of proposal 2010-7 which is being offered at the
> meeting next Tuesday. It would solve both problems articulated above.
> 

It looks like this redefines an extra-small as a /48 and a small as
/40 and /32 is now a medium...  I think Randy originally said he
was an X-small v4 and an X-small (/48?) would suffice, but he was
forced to justify a /32 due to the /32 minimum in the current
terms.  I agree that 2010-7 would fix this, as far as I understand it.



> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 






-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539