[arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for p...@arin.net

Total of 76 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 28 00:53:18 EDT 2017 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 23.68% | 18 | 25.36% | 414219 | o...@delong.com 13.16% | 10 | 15.77% | 257528 |

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

The first draft of my proposal was very conservative. For v6 I proposed the two smallest possible subnet values be exempted from SWIP, which was /60 and /64. I figured that this would be enough for 16 subnets, enough for IOT and/or guest,wired, and wireless networks on different segments.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On this thread we've gone from near-real-time update of bus GPS co-ordinates to suggesting allocating over 64 subnets per student for most of our school districts was a bad idea and we should have allocated more(!) Some stats for SY2017 # districts: 317; # districts <=100 students: 46 ;

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Richard J Letts wrote: As an example we assign /48's to school districts, If it is a really small school district, that is unlikely to expand beyond 16 sites, you could give them a /44, otherwise each district should get at least a /40 or more. A university might need more, or maybe a /40

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

Richard J Letts wrote: > I believe we should SWIP for /48. > I believe we may SWIP for /56 or longer if the Service provider deems it > useful. Effectively, length is irrelevant. SWIP to the responsible & responsive network operator. > > As an example we assign /48's to school districts, So

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

I believe we should SWIP for /48. I believe we may SWIP for /56 or longer if the Service provider deems it useful. As an example we assign /48's to school districts, colleges, and universities in the State of Washington. I want each of them to have their own SWIP records so any issues with

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

I agree that we need to act on THIS draft, and not load up the discussion with other issues that this draft is not intended to address. The one question regarding SWIP/WHOIS policy in general I have moved to another thread since it is unrelated to this draft. This draft is about changing the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On the contrary, it questions the validity and purpose of a swip. Why is a SWIP necessary for IPv6? When is it necessary? And is necessity dependent on network/allocation size? All questions others have asked. For all direct allocations , there are several POC's and an Organisation Name &

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jul 26, 2017, at 07:20 , Michael Peddemors wrote: > > > > But, in keeping with your 'flippant' style, we do have some ISP's that aren't responsible for the traffic that happens on their

[arin-ppml] Board Adopts New Policies

On 22 June 2017, the Board of Trustees adopted the following Recommended Draft Policies: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative simplified criteria for justifying small IPv4 transfers Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers These adopted