[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Mar 29 15:10:39 EDT 2013
On 3/29/13 12:59 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 9:10 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> On 3/28/13 18:04 , William Herrin wrote:
>>> "220.127.116.11(b): In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32
>>> allocation unless they specifically request a /36 or /40. In no case
>>> shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
>> 18.104.22.168(g): An LIR that requested a /36 or /40 initial allocation is
>> entitled to increase said allocation's size to /36 or /32. This change is
>> not a subsequent allocation as described in 6.5.3. Additionally, a minimum
>> of a /32 will be reserved for all such LIRs to facilitate this expansion.
> Hi David,
> Isn't that last line business process rather than number policy? The
> first line effectively requires ARIN to reserve or take some other
> action to keep the full /32 available for the LIR's expansion. But the
> last line dictates how: by explicitly reserving the space.
Yes, probably. I added the last sentence to make it abundantly clear,
that is the intended effect of the first sentence. If John and staff
interpret the first sentence as requiring ARIN to reserve a /32 for
anyone with a x-small or xx-small IPv6 allocation, then I would be happy
to remove the last sentence. But, if there is anyway to interpret the
first sentence as not requiring the a hard reservation of a /32 then I
think I'd prefer to leave the sentence in.
What do other think?
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML