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 | pmcn...@cameron.ne
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.
Th
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 ;
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
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 y
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 tr
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
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 &
Addres
> 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 networks too ;)
> Well… We have ISPs that fail t
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 p
10 matches
Mail list logo