[arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)

Richard J Letts rjletts at uw.edu
Mon Jun 19 16:40:41 EDT 2017

Technically, there's no relationship between the size of an address block allocated to a customer, and it's appearance the an Internet routing table.

As an example the Washington State K20 network is fully IPv6-enabled (2607:FA78::/32) and has blocks assigned to sites -- we don't normally advertise the smaller blocks inside that.
We are currently assigning a /48 to each site, so the policy makes no difference to me. However, we could as easily given the smaller single-homed customers (25% of School districts have less than 100 students) a /56 or even a /60 and they would have had more than enough subnets. The /32 alone would appear in the routing tables (along with the blocks for any multi-homed customers addressed out of it -- though it looks like only the single /32 is being advertised. Will check on that)

Richard Letts
Manager: Network Operations Center UW, UWMC, WA-K20, PNWGP, PWAVE, WRN
Process Manager: Incident Management, Event Management
Service Manager: Wired Network Service
UW Information Technology
Mail: Box 354840
Street: 4545 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105
206.685.1699 | mobile 206.790.5837
rjletts at uw.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David
> R Huberman
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:37 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?)
> Hello,
> Albert wrote:
> > Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP'ed
> > since it is routable on the internet, and since so far the majority
> > seems to think that /56 is small enough to not require SWIP, this
> > leaves 7 choices of /49 to /55 to set the limit for SWIP in the Draft.
> I think that when we consider SWIP boundaries, we should take into account
> strictly technical considerations, and not arbitrary ones.  I think the argument
> for requiring a /48 or larger to be SWIPed is well-grounded in network
> engineering practices.  I'm not sure I understand the technical argument for
> anything smaller than a /48 being mandatory.
> Thank you,
> David
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list