[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Fri Jul 14 16:07:07 EDT 2017
To avoid the situation of Owen being a lone voice, I have to echo his point that it is insane that people persist with IPv4-think and extreme conservation. Allocations longer than a /48 to a residence ensure that automated topology configuration can’t happen, because /52’s won’t happen and /56’s are too long for random consumer plug-n-play. Therefore a policy that /48’s must be swiped ensures that we maintain single subnet consumer networks. A policy that says /48’s might be swiped (will in a business and not in a non-residential case) does not reinforce the braindead notion that longer than /48 has some special meaning beyond the need to kill off a generation of those with the ‘addresses are a scarce resource’ mindset.
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:12 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
Consensus hasn’t yet been reached. I agree that there is significant support for “shorter than /56” actually (not /56 itself). Nonetheless, I don’t believe that shorter than /56 is the ideal place to put the boundary.
I think you're an outlier here. I see consensus that /48 should be swiped and /56 should not. If there's debate that /52 or /49 should also not be swiped or that a some more subtle criteria should determine what's swiped, it's not exactly chewing up bandwidth on the mailing list.
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML