In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.1705261844500.30859@localhost.localdomain>, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>In the case of v4, often the records were only put in place right before >attempting to get another allocation... Yes. I myself can still remember, back in the day... before the law changed in my state... throwing the roach out the car window, just after being lit up with the whirling red and blue lights, but before the cop could actually pull me over. Ah, to be young and reckless again! 'Tis a thing to be wished for. Anyway, it is somwhow strangely reassuring to know that IPv4 allocation holders have often been every bit the scofflaws that I myself was, back in the day. decades ago. >>From the ISP prospective, unless you are a giant, almost noone is going to >ever have to go back for more than their initial /32. If they give >everyone a /48, that is 65k assignments, and if they chose a /56 that >expands that number 256 fold. > >The only real "Internet Police" stick is the records needed for additional >assignments must be there before you can get more. If in fact more is >never needed because of the size of the initial allocation, there is zero >incentive to SWIP the customers... So, if I may summarize, the current discussion of a change to the existing SWIP rule for IPv6... the civilized discussion that I wantonly and shamlessly barged, uninvited, into the middle of... in the end all amounts to a debate about how many angelic /48s can dance on the head of a pin? Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
