On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > BCP38 was out before RIRs started moving down to /24s. It didn’t take long > for ISPs to adapt to /24s from /20s.
Hi Owen, Most ISPs never adopted /20 in the first place. The were /24 before and after. Those that adopted /20 were mostly aware of what goes on here so had only the trouble they made for themselves. /24 is different. Announcements smaller than /24 were interdicted right at the start of CIDR by people who very nearly been burned by too many announcements. The /24 filter is very widespread. On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Heather Schiller <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > "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." Hi Heather, I have no objection to changing the size to a flat /24. I do wonder about the efficacy of the policy overall. For something this transitory, is there a sound reason why addresses assigned from an upstream ISP are not suitable? What is ARIN's experience with allocations under this policy? Have there been any? What were the justifications? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges? _______________________________________________ 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.
