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

Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us
Sat Mar 30 17:07:35 EDT 2013

On 3/29/13 2:43 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 5:31 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> The idea is that an ISP receiving less than a /32 should *always* be
>> able to expand to a /32 without either renumbering or adding a
>> additional route to the public Internet. The loss of the balance of
>> that /32 is far preferable to either the challenge of renumbering or
>> the registry-driven addition of another BGP route.
> That could be the case (if the community decides accordingly), and
> it is simply important to make clear why the policy calls for more
> significant reservations then might otherwise be expected.

Again, I do not think any numbering policy should be ever be motivated 
by billing policy.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list