<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 30, 2017, at 06:41 , William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" class="">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Roberts, Orin <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:oroberts@bell.ca" target="_blank" class="">oroberts@bell.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello all,<br class="">
<br class="">
I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances (daily swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.<br class="">
<br class="">
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.<br class="">
<br class="">
With regards to IPv6, I would recommend ANY USER/ENTITY/ORG that requests a /56 OR LARGER NETWORK assignment be swiped.<br class="">
<br class="">
That would still leave /60 to /64 assignments as minimum assignment or for dynamic usage for either residential or other usage.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Howdy,<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>This is one of those rare occasions when I absolutely agree with Bill. If we’re going to do this, I would support a requirement as follows:</div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>For customers fitting the definition in NRPM 2.13, /47 or shorter.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>For customers not fitting the definition in NRPM 2.13 /63 or shorter.</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">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.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Yes… The only place I can imagine assigning /64s to customers as a legitimate practice is for single-LAN datacenter installations where the customer has no router.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If the customer might have a router, a /48 is the best and safest default choice and shorter should be possible with reasonable justification.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>