Technically, there's no relationship between the size of an address block allocated to a customer, and it's appearance the an Internet routing table.
As an example the Washington State K20 network is fully IPv6-enabled (2607:FA78::/32) and has blocks assigned to sites -- we don't normally advertise the smaller blocks inside that. We are currently assigning a /48 to each site, so the policy makes no difference to me. However, we could as easily given the smaller single-homed customers (25% of School districts have less than 100 students) a /56 or even a /60 and they would have had more than enough subnets. The /32 alone would appear in the routing tables (along with the blocks for any multi-homed customers addressed out of it -- though it looks like only the single /32 is being advertised. Will check on that) Richard Letts Manager: Network Operations Center UW, UWMC, WA-K20, PNWGP, PWAVE, WRN Process Manager: Incident Management, Event Management Service Manager: Wired Network Service UW Information Technology Mail: Box 354840 Street: 4545 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 206.685.1699 | mobile 206.790.5837 [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David > R Huberman > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 10:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 SWIP requirements (?) > > Hello, > > Albert wrote: > > > Based on comments so far, most agree that a /48 should be SWIP'ed > > since it is routable on the internet, and since so far the majority > > seems to think that /56 is small enough to not require SWIP, this > > leaves 7 choices of /49 to /55 to set the limit for SWIP in the Draft. > > I think that when we consider SWIP boundaries, we should take into account > strictly technical considerations, and not arbitrary ones. I think the > argument > for requiring a /48 or larger to be SWIPed is well-grounded in network > engineering practices. I'm not sure I understand the technical argument for > anything smaller than a /48 being mandatory. > > Thank you, > David > _______________________________________________ > 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.
