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

Roberts, Orin oroberts at bell.ca
Tue Jun 6 16:10:44 EDT 2017


“Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s”

ARIN also currently requires a SWIP for an IPv4 /29 , which makes  “/60" a more applicable reference point; unless the intent is to minimize or eliminate SWIPs for IPv6 (ISPs won’t mind).

Orin



From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: June-06-17 3:04 PM
To: Leif Sawyer
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 Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com<mailto:lsawyer at gci.com>> wrote:
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.

Hi Leif,

IMHO, IPv6 /48 = IPv4 /24. Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s, we should require it for IPv6 /48s.

I'd be comfortable with "more than a /56" and "more than a /60." I prefer "more than a /56."

I would oppose "/60 or more" or "/56 or more" because I believe that would encourage ISPs to engage in unhealthy assignment practices to avoid SWIP reporting, such as assigning /64s, /61s and /57s.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com<mailto:herrin at dirtside.com>  bill at herrin.us<mailto: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/20170606/86a52a3d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list