Someone want to remind us all of what the "benefits" of SWIP are?
Best, -M< On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 22:12 Seth Mattinen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/31/17 10:23 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > As to my IPv6 proposal regarding SWIP, based on the comments received so > > far, except for one person who totally rejected my Draft because > > changing the IPv4 standard for SWIP to more than 16 addresses from the > > current 8 addresses, everyone else responding supports changing the > > current point from a /64, or SWIP for everyone, to some level that small > > customers do not have to be SWIP'ed. > > Remove all references to a policy change for IPv4 and I'm fine with > whatever IPv6 threshold ends up being. I think the current IPv6 > threshold is fine. I also don't really care what the IPv6 threshold is, > so I'll leave the in depth discussion to everyone who does care. I'll > follow whatever the NRPM ends up saying the threshold is for IPv6. > > But I oppose any changes to the IPv4 SWIP threshold. > > ~Seth > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
