> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:49, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I’m pretty sure that ARIN has repeatedly rejected various versions of this use case already and would do so again. > 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. It may be a “use case”, but not one that I believe ARIN would consider to be in line with policy as currently written. > I cannot stress enough how wasteful this plan is, but it is > technically compliant with justifiable use under current IPv6 policy. Pretty sure that’s not actually the case. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
