[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
bill at herrin.us
Mon Jul 17 19:02:18 EDT 2017
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Paul McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net> wrote:
> I would prefer to give my residential users a /48 for the future but a /56
This is acceptable under current ARIN policy and would remain so under
variant of the policy currently under discussion.
> could work, just a pain. Again rDNS could be a problem.
> Do AS's use ARIN reverse DNS for size smaller than /48?
> If rDNS will not work worldwide except with /48 advertising,
RDNS for IPv6 works best with allocations on nibble boundaries. /48, /52,
/56, /60, /64, etc. It's only fractionally more work on non-nibble
boundaries but not nearly as clean. Clean solutions are desirable.
> I think that should be the SWIP boundary.
> I know for a while some AS's required /32.
You may be confusing RDNS with BGP. For a while, a few Internet backbones
refused to accept and route BGP prefixes longer than (less than) a /32. The
last holdout gave up a couple years ago; standard practice is now /48. It's
unlikely to change to anything longer than a /48, ever.
IPv6 RDNS has always worked at any CIDR level and continues to work most
cleanly at any nibble boundary.
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