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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Tue May 30 09:41:24 EDT 2017


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Roberts, Orin <oroberts at bell.ca> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances
> (daily swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.
>
> Leave the IPv4 /29 requirements alone, THIS LIMIT IS ALREADY BEING PUSHED
> AT DAILY BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS and only the vague ARIN policy prevents
> total chaos.
>
> With regards to IPv6, I would recommend ANY USER/ENTITY/ORG that requests
> a /56 OR LARGER NETWORK assignment be swiped.
>
> That would still leave /60 to /64 assignments as minimum assignment or for
> dynamic usage for either residential or other usage.
>

Howdy,

I don't like putting the SWIP requirement at /56 or larger because I think
that would encourage ISPs to assign /60s instead of /56s. The IPv6 experts
I've read seem to have a pretty strong consensus that the minimum
assignment to an end user should be either /48 or /56. Setting ARIN policy
that encourages assignments smaller than -both- of these numbers would be a
bad idea IMHO.

Again I remind everyone that a /64 assignment to an end user, even for
dynamic or residential use, is absolutely positively 100% wrong. Doing so
prevents the end user from configuring their local lans as IPv6 is
designed. They need at least a /60 for that. If you are assigning /64's to
end users, you are doing it wrong.

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/20170530/89802028/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list