[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

[William Herrin]

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
>
Hi Paul,

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.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170717/200677f3/attachment.htm>