As the author of this Draft Policy, I can now see the IPv4 change has
little/no support. I included it originally to give equality to both v4
and v6 with more than 16 ip4 addresses or 16 ip6 networks.
I have asked the AC to remove the IPv4 language from the proposal
(4.2.3.7.1), leaving only the IPv6 portion (6.5.5.1). After their next
meeting, the v4 portion will be hopefully gone.
Since v6 assignments should be on nibble boundaries, the only real choices
are /48, /52, /56, /60 and /64. So far, based on expressed comments, "more
than a /56" appears to have the majority of support.
Does the community think I should also ask the AC to change the 6.5.5.1 v6
proposal to /56 to match the expressed preference so far so that the Draft
is in alignment with the community?
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017, Austin Murkland wrote:
Oppose as written, agree with all of Andy's points.
-Austin
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Hadenfeldt, Andrew C <
[email protected]> wrote:
Oppose as written, +1 on the points below (leave /29 alone, and would
prefer to see /56 rather than /60)
*-Andy*
*From:* ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *William
Herrin
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:02 PM
*To:* ARIN <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration
requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
Policy statement:
Amend 4.2.3.7.1 of the policy manual to strike "/29 or more" and change to
"more than a /28".
Hello,
In my opinion...
Leave /29 alone or change it to "more than a single IP address." In these
days of IPv4 shortage, substantial networks sit behind small blocks of
public addresses. These networks should be documented with reachable POCs
lest the anti-spam/virus/malware folks slam down /24 filters for lack of
information about how misbehaving networks are partitioned.
Amend 6.5.5.1 of the policy manual to strike "/64 or more" and change to
"more than a /60".
Change this to "more than a /56." Service providers should NOT be
assigning /64's to end users. If you're doing that, you're doing it wrong.
An IPv6 customer should be able to have more than one /64 subnet without
resorting to NAT so /60 should be the absolute minimum end-user assignment,
equivalent for all intents and purposes to an IPv4 /32. If we then want
"equivalence" to the /29 policy so that individuals with the minimum and
near-minimum assignment do not need to be SWIPed, it makes sense to move
the next subnetting level up. In IPv6, assignment is strongly recommended
on nibble boundaries, so that means /56.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected]
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message and any attachments.
_______________________________________________
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.
