[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment

Charles Gucker 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 mailing list