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

[Brandon Ross]

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 
already.

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross