quot;
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments
Can ARIN staff please comment?
If an ISP give out a mix of /48 and /56 which of the following is true:
A. each unique customer end site given a /56 counts as a single /56 at
100% util
Sure it is… There is nothing in ARIN policy ever that has made a distinction
about legacy holders
or somehow excluded them from participating in or receiving any benefit of any
ARIN policy if
they sign an RSA for their new resources.
Owen
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
That is not necessarily true of the hypothetical automatic assignment discussed
below
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Every thing is already available to legacy holders if it is available to the
> rest of the community.
>
> However,
Every thing is already available to legacy holders if it is available to the
rest of the community.
However, for any new resources, they will have to sign an RSA and their new
resources will not be legacy.
Owen
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> I'd support such an auto
I'd support such an automatic allocation.
I'd support it even more if it was made available to legacy holders.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Oct 9, 2015, at 1:19 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
>
> This is all getting complex, confusing, and is still encouraging ISPs to give
> out
This is all getting complex, confusing, and is still encouraging ISPs to give
out less than the recommended /48 to end users.
Why don't we just change policy so that every ISP gets an automatic IPv6 that
approximates /32 IPv4 ~= /48 IPv6
Make it automatic, and at no additional cost. Also, make
Can ARIN staff please comment?
If an ISP give out a mix of /48 and /56 which of the following is true:
A. each unique customer end site given a /56 counts as a single /56 at
100% utilized
and each unique customer end site given a /48 counts as 256 /56s
at 100% utilized
B. each unique custom
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>>
>> Owen,
>>
You left out the part where you have to justify issuing that many /56s to
each of those large customers.
>>
>> I believe if an ISP gives N number of /64s to a single
> On Oct 8, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
>>> You left out the part where you have to justify issuing that many /56s to
>>> each of those large customers.
>
> I believe if an ISP gives N number of /64s to a single end-site
> transit customer, so long a N < 65537 it is ju
Owen,
>> You left out the part where you have to justify issuing that many /56s to
>> each of those large customers.
I believe if an ISP gives N number of /64s to a single end-site
transit customer, so long a N < 65537 it is justified under ARIN
policy.
So for an ISP that assigns a mix of /48 a
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I follow the impact of the change here.
>
> Under current policy if an ISP assigns only /48s to each customer, then I
> count the number of customer and consider than many /48s as fully utilized.
>
> Under current policy if
I'm not sure I follow the impact of the change here.
Under current policy if an ISP assigns only /48s to each customer, then I
count the number of customer and consider than many /48s as fully utilized.
Under current policy if an ISP assigns only /56s to each customer, then I
count the number of
Thanks, Matt
This is precisely the subject on which I hoped to get community feedback.
John Springer
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015, Matthew Petach wrote:
OPPOSED
How I subdivide and allocate addresses
internally and downstream is not a matter
for the community to vote on; that's between
me and my cust
I do not think this policy is unsound or unfair, however I do not believe
it will have the intended effect. Network Operators should have the ability
to subnet their address blocks as they see fit without being penalized when
they come back for more addresses. It seems that as long as the allocated
OPPOSED
How I subdivide and allocate addresses
internally and downstream is not a matter
for the community to vote on; that's between
me and my customers.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:54 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>
> On 17 September 2015 the ARIN
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> From: "ARIN"
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:54:13 PM
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignme
s
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "ARIN"
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:54:13 PM
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments
Draft Policy ARIN-2015
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 15:41 , John Springer wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:37 , John Springer wrote:
>>>
>>> And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is
>>> technically unsound or unfair and partial?
>
Hi Owen,
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:37 , John Springer wrote:
And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is technically
unsound or unfair and partial?
This isn?t really necessary, John. A proposal must be fair, technically sound,
Yes. The only lever ARIN has is to penalize people who've made poor
choices in the past.
If people read the policy, they'll know about the risk of penalty and
act accordingly now.
I support.
Matthew Kaufman
On 9/24/2015 12:37 PM, John Springer wrote:
Hi PPML,
There have been a number of p
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:37 , John Springer wrote:
>
> Hi PPML,
>
> There have been a number of public discussions regarding the ins and outs of
> IPV6 subnet allocation. One such starts here:
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-October/070339.html
>
> My recollection of the outco
Hi PPML,
There have been a number of public discussions regarding the ins and outs
of IPV6 subnet allocation. One such starts here:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-October/070339.html
My recollection of the outcomes of these discussions is a sort of rough
consensus that /48 is a
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
Minimum IPv6 Assignments
On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-224 Minimum IPv6 Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_10.html
You are encour
23 matches
Mail list logo