[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
jcurran at arin.net
Fri Mar 29 21:33:25 EDT 2013
On Mar 29, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
> Since /36 (and potentially /40) allocations to LIRs are made at the
> sole discretion of the ISP, presumably for cost saving reasons, when
> they could have just as easily requested a /32 with an identical
> (epsilon) level of scrutiny, I would say that making every LIR
> allocation from its own /28 reservation (just like a /32) is eminently
I also believe it is defensible if the community wishes it,
but want to be certain that the tradeoffs are well-discussed
by the community.
> You never know who's engaging in too-much-v4-thinking. You never know
> whose company is going to take off like gangbusters.
> I'm not sure what the absolute number of routing table slots that
> could be saved by this sort of approach ten years on would be. I do
> know though that TCAM and route processor memory are much more finite
> than IPv6 prefixes.
Let us all hope it remains that way... (but, yes the point is well-taken)
> I don't however think that this sort of micromanagement of reservation
> size belongs in the NRPM. I believe it is solely an operational and
> implementation detail, one for the Board and Staff to hash out and do
> the right thing.
It can certainly be considered an operational detail; we attempt to
capture our understanding of the discussion on the list and include
that in our staff assessment if that is the case. Alternatively, the
AC can provide any implementation suggestions as comments if desired.
President and CEO
More information about the ARIN-PPML