On Thursday, January 8, 2015, Heather Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Happy New Year PPML! > > As one of the shepherds of this policy, it would be very helpful to hear > from the community on this proposal. Comments for or against are welcome, > as are any questions. > > You may want to read this report from RIPE Labs, specifically discussing > the existing policy, and tests they did on routability of small prefixes. > > > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/propagation-of-longer-than-24-ipv4-prefixes > > Thanks! > --Heather > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: ARIN <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in > Section 4.10 > To: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > > > On 20 November 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-214 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_22.html > > You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft > Policy 2014-22 on the Public Policy Mailing List. > > > The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance > of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource > Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > ## * ## > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22 > Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10 > > Date: 25 November 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > The current section 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 > Deployment creates an issue where a small new organization that requires an > IPv4 allocation or assignment would potentially receive a block that today > would be unroutable and therefore unusable for it intended purposes. > > Policy statement: > > Change > > "This block will be subject to a minimum size allocation of /28 and a > maximum size allocation of /24. ARIN should use sparse allocation when > possible within that /10 block." > > To > > "This block will be subject to an allocation of /24. ARIN should use > sparse allocation when possible within that /10 block." > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> if you experience any > issues. > I am fully opposed to any proposal that allows ARIN to set the expectation that anything longer than a /24 will be reachable. It is the long standing practice that such a small allocation is provided by the upstream from an aggregate block. I will not be updating my prefix list filters and expanding my RIB if this passes. Those RIB spots are for ipv6, not another attempt at cgn / ipv4 life support. CB
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
