[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment
cgucker at onesc.net
Mon Mar 14 18:12:23 EDT 2011
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
<mksmith at adhost.com> wrote:
> I don't support this proposal as written. I could see putting the /48 and greater in the X-SMALL to give some balance between smallest allocations in v4 and v6, but I think the /32 belongs in the SMALL size as it is presently. So that would leave something like:
Keep in mind, this is for ISPs, not end-users. The global consensus
has been /32's for ISPs, which is where this originated from.
> X-small /48 or smaller
> Small /31 to /47
> Medium /29 to /27
> Large /26 to /24
> X-large /23 to /20
> XX-large /20 and larger
> I'm not sure that the boundaries have to be exact - it's really an O&M function to specify the "size" of a netblock, specifically for billing purposes.
I really took a swag at this and tried to keep it as clean as
possible. It's an existing model using IPv4 that was being followed.
More information about the ARIN-PPML