The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
evaluate the discussion in order to assess
> As for 40,000 IPv6 customers on a /40, nothing in ARIN policy prevents
> assigning /56's or even less at this level or even at a higher level than
> 3Xsmall. There are even operators that only provide a /64 to each node.
Indeed, there is at least one very large eyeball ISP that tragically assi
On 2020-06-23 11:42, John Santos wrote:
While I support this in principle, what is to prevent someone from
violating the intent by getting a /40 and assigning /56's to 40,000
customers, instead of /48's to no more than 250 customers?
I don't think that's the intent of this draft policy but eve
I am in favor of the proposal, as I think it is wrong to double someones
fees simply for having the minimum amount of IPv6 while holding the
minimum amount of IPv4. It appears that many at this level are currently
saying no to IPv6 rather than have their fees double. ARIN should not
have a pol
While I support this in principle, what is to prevent someone from violating the
intent by getting a /40 and assigning /56's to 40,000 customers, instead of
/48's to no more than 250 customers?
On 6/23/2020 10:24 AM, ARIN wrote:
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2020-3: IPv
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
evaluate the discussion in order to assess
