On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected]> wrote: > The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48 have all been discussed. If one is > more favorable than > the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use that one, > we will certainly > take that under advisory. >
Hi Leif, IMHO, IPv6 /48 = IPv4 /24. Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s, we should require it for IPv6 /48s. I'd be comfortable with "more than a /56" and "more than a /60." I prefer "more than a /56." I would oppose "/60 or more" or "/56 or more" because I believe that would encourage ISPs to engage in unhealthy assignment practices to avoid SWIP reporting, such as assigning /64s, /61s and /57s. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
_______________________________________________ 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.
