Michael Dillon sez: "ARIN ... belives IPv6 addresses are ... resources that need to be [distributed] according to need." I guess I have to agree with this sentiment. If the ARIN community decides there is a better way to distribute IP addresses *OTHER THAN* need, I'd be really happy to hear what that method would be. --bill On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 09:08:43PM +0100, michael.dillon@xxxxxx wrote: > > It seems that someone in ARIN land believes that IPv6 addresses are > scarce resources that need to be carefully dribbled out to customers > according to need. The following proposal has just been formally made to > change ARIN's allocation policy. > > ------start of copied text------ > > Replace the text in section 6.5.4.1 with the following text: > > LIR's may assign blocks in the range of /48 to /64 to end sites. > All assignments made by LIR's should meet a minimum HD-Ratio of .25. > > * /64 - Site needing only a single subnet. > * /60 - Site with 2-3 subnets initially. > * /56 - Site with 4-7 subnets initially. > * /52 - Site with 8-15 subnets initially. > * /48 - Site with 16+ subnets initially. > > For end sites to whom reverse DNS will be delegated, the LIR/ISP should > consider making an assignment on a nibble (4-bit) boundary to simplify > reverse lookup delegation. > > LIR's do not need to issue all 5 sizes of prefixes as long as the > HD-Ratio requirement is met. > > ------end of copied text------ > > --Michael Dillon > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- --bill Opinions expressed may not even be mine by the time you read them, and certainly don't reflect those of any other entity (legal or otherwise). _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf