“Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s” ARIN also currently requires a SWIP for an IPv4 /29 , which makes “/60" a more applicable reference point; unless the intent is to minimize or eliminate SWIPs for IPv6 (ISPs won’t mind).
Orin From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: June-06-17 3:04 PM To: Leif Sawyer Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]<mailto:[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.
