On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:27 AM John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know the use case, and I don't > think anyone else here does or if they do, they haven't described it.
I don't know the use case that was documented for the /16 allocation, but I know of a straightforward use case which I believe fully compliant with ARIN policy, justifies an IPv6 /16 and is utterly divorced from anything resembling efficient use. My use case is simple: I want to assign the IETF recommended /48 prefixes to my customers, I want to use 6rd to reach them and I don't want to map the IPv4 address space directly in to 6rd without narrowing it to my various IPv4 allocations. Presto. I need 32 bits to map the v4 address space into 6rd and I want each to lead to a /48, so I need /48-32 = a /16. Indeed, I could even justify a /12 if ARIN allowed it since I don't want my native IPv6 use to overlap 6rd. I cannot stress enough how wasteful this plan is, but it is technically compliant with justifiable use under current IPv6 policy. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
