[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 16:21:52 EDT 2010

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 4:12 PM
> To: Owen DeLong
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > Probably a /24. That allows a /56 for end-sites which is suboptimal
> > (end sites should be at least a /48), but, hopefully doesn't consume
> > too vast a swath of IPv6 in the process (roughly a  /8).
> can't we let the ISP decide what makes sense? it seems (to me) that a
> /48 for a business-type link (your traditional T1/T3 customer type,
> and office, etc.) is perfectly rational. It seems, to me, that a /56
> for a consumer (dsl/cable/etc) is also quite fine.
> There are, I'm sure, ISP folks who'd decide to just assign a /48
> across the board... I'm not sure that guidance (aside from general
> scoping) is required from ARIN to the members/users.

So you would be fine with each ISP getting a /16 for 6rd so they can do 32
bits for m-n and /48s to end users?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list