[arin-ppml] I Oppose 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Thu Oct 7 09:54:00 EDT 2010

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:56 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I would actually support these changes. I'd put the upper bound at /24 rather than /26, as I
> believe we should stop issuing things on non-nibble boundaries in general.

Hi Owen,

I'd rather see it at /28 but I concede the existence of credible cases
where a particular transition scheme needs to consume a full /28. It's
not unreasonable to expect that an ISP might want non-transition space
in the same allocation (pushing it to /27) and the ISP might usefully
try a second transition scheme without decommissioning the first
(needing another /28, thus pushing the whole thing to /26.)

Barring a classification of a address pools where the next pool bigger
than /28 allocates /24s, I'd prefer not to see allocation for
transition addresses exceed /26. Past that a network is getting rather
firmly embedded in the "I'm sloppy with my network management and I
want everybody else to pay for it" territory.


William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list