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

[Chris Woodfield]

My preference is “larger than /56”. This captures most businesses with static allocations (which, based on my experience, are typically done at the /48 boundary) while exempting small offices (I have a /56 for my home office, as a data point).

Alternatively, one could make a distinction between static and dynamic allocations at the /56 boundary level, requiring SWIP for static assignments only.

-C

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
> 
> Good day, PPML!
> 
> First, as the primary shepherd for ARIN-2017-5,  I want to thank everybody for the spirited
> discussion on this proposal.  It's generated a lot of good feedback for the AC to take
> under consideration as we develop the text.
> 
> Based on the community feedback, as well as internal dialog, I'm going to remove the IPv4
> requirements from the draft policy proposal.
> 
> I'll have a new version of the draft text posted to the ARIN website once I'm finished with
> the edits and it's approved internally.
> 
> It would still be very useful to understand if there's majority community support for
> specific nibble boundaries for the IPv6 cut-off.
> 
> The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48  have all been discussed.  If one is more favorable than
> the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use that one, we will certainly
> take that under advisory.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  Leif Sawyer
>  ARIN  Advisory Council.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>