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

Lorenzo Colitti lorenzo at google.com
Thu Oct 14 16:51:41 EDT 2010

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> If you can get 6rd to fit in  single /16, then, perhaps we could consider
> allowing it to be permanent.
> However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd /24s, then, you're talking about
> the vast majority of an entire /12 just in the ARIN region.

Why not we make it a /28, and thus give the customer a /60? The customer
still gets 16 subnets for his house, and when 6rd goes away (since, as you
point out there are other disadvantages beyond address space use compared to
native IPv6), then the subnet will be /56 (since, following your reasoning,
that is what competitors with native IPv6 access will be providing).

I would point out that the only ISP I am aware of that is conducting
residential trials of IPv6 seems to be talking about giving only a /64 to
the home by default due to CPE issues. To me, that is a much greater problem
than having a /60 instead of a /56, because with a /64 you can't do any
subnetting at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20101014/db60bee0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list