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

Christopher Morrow christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 16:25:46 EDT 2010

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> -----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?

if they are planning on a transition technology (and that's their
stated reason for a subsequent allocation) it seems that 'hey, a
smaller initial prefix, until you migrate to native, seems like a
better plan, eh?'

6rd seems like strictly a consumer-tech answer.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list