[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
bross at pobox.com
Sat Mar 30 19:09:00 EDT 2013
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, William Herrin wrote:
> 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 disagree. As long as the return isn't creating MORE deaggregation it
should be good enough. I believe the policy proposal as written already
takes care of that.
> 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.
But why would anyone do that? The fee schedule is on nibble boundaries
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
More information about the ARIN-PPML