[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP
JOHN at egh.com
Sat Apr 17 20:26:05 EDT 2010
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.
> Bill Herrin
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML