Correction…. fingers got ahead of brain… I meant to say 47. Owen
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > Based on William’s logic below, I would advocate for 49. > > Owen > >> On Jun 19, 2017, at 8:05 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us >> <mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 1:37 PM, David R Huberman <dav...@panix.com >> <mailto:dav...@panix.com>> 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. >> >> Hi David, >> >> The obvious technical argument against Nibble "or larger" is that it >> encourages assignment on non-niblle boundaries. If /56 requires SWIP, the >> ISP has reason to assign /57 instead of /56. That makes IPv6 assignment as >> messy as IPv4. If instead /55 requires SWIP, the likely ISP default value >> becomes /56, a good nibble-boundary choice. A policy which starts requiring >> SWIP at Nibble+1 implicitly encourages the ISP to set their default >> assignment size at a nibble boundary which is well-grounded in network >> engineering practices >> >> So first and foremost it is technologically correct to set the SWIP boundary >> to start at "larger than Nibble" or "Nibble+1 or larger." >> >> Since "larger than /48" and "/47 or larger" are ruled out by /48's >> independent routability (also a technical consideration) and /64 is ruled >> out for preventing the intended end-user IPv6 routing ability (also a >> technical consideration), that leaves "larger than" /52, /56 and /60 as the >> only -technically reasonable- options. >> >> Regards, >> Bill Herrin >> >> >> -- >> William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com >> <mailto:her...@dirtside.com> b...@herrin.us <mailto:b...@herrin.us> >> Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/ >> <http://www.dirtside.com/>> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net >> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
