> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:35, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:31 PM David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: >>> John Curran has already said that ARIN would accept a wide range of >>> esoteric network designs as justifying an initial /16, provided they >>> were presented in good faith. >> >> I would support a policy to clarify that 6RD does not justify >> a /20 or /16. > > Or... and humor me here... we could reduce the cap to something > sustainable regardless of how folks design their networks and stop > concerning ourselves with whether they're designing their networks as > we think they should.
One reason I oppose this approach harkens back to a discussion I had with John B formerly of $CABLECO fame. In that discussion I was (once again) complaining about their rather stingy IPv6 constraints on the customers, especially residential customers. John’s response was “In order to run a network with the number of customers we have the way we have to manage our addresses, giving customers /48s would require a /16.” He said this as if it was an utterly unreasonable thing for $CABLECO to request from ARIN. I took it as a sign that the /16 cap was almost certainly the correct value. Owen _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
