[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:02 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> As I see it this came up because we people asked to return all but a /36 of
> their /32, they were initially told they had to return they /32 and the
> could get a new /36.  Business practice wise you fixed the immediate
> problem, I think.
>
> After thinking about it for a while, if we even need any policy at all, we
> should just have a general policy describing how IPv6 block can be reduced
> by returning only part of a block, it should probably be very generic and
> apply to allocations and end user assignments.  It might even be better if
> it we a separate proposal all together.
>
> What do others think?

Hi David,

I concur, but with a couple reservations:

I think an ISP holding multiple IPv6 blocks should have to return full
blocks before it can return a partial of it's sole remaining block.
NRPM 6.3.8, "aggregation is considered to be the most important."

I think the ISP's remaining partial block after a return should fall
on a nibble boundary. No dropping from /32 to /33, it's /32 to /36 or
/40 or /44, etc.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004