> Current qualifications for ARIN to assign an IPv6 /48 block for > off-Internet use is roughly: > > 1. Have 2000 hosts, or > 2. Submit a network plan explaining why ULA addresses are not good enough. > > More than a single /48 requires multiple sites and the above.
When using IPv6 the trend has been to discourage counting hosts, but rather counting networks. Is it too much to ask the policy to start drifting in the direction? > There's more nuance and some corner cases (see NRPM 6.5.8), but that's > the general shape of it. Some of the explanatory notes in 6.5.8.1 seem to reinforce the 2000 hosts idea, but also has a couple of important "loopholes" that make justification easy if your network needs unique addresses. (This is a GOOD THING in my eyes.) > Is that about right for what the policy should be? Should the rules be > more restrictive? Less? Where would you set them and why? I think unique addressing is important, so I'd set the rules pretty loose. We could plan to re-evaluate when allocation of 2003::/3 hits something like 25% and 50%? _______________________________________________ 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.
