On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > The boundaries at /60, /56, and /48 have all been discussed. If one is > more favorable than > the other, and you would like to see the proposal edited to use that one, > we will certainly > take that under advisory. >
Personally, I find any of the three acceptable. I have a preference that "assignments longer than /56 not require SWIP", and "assignments /48 or shorter require SWIP". While minimally acceptable, I would prefer to not create an incentive for providers to make assignments as long as /60. I would prefer providers to make assignments no longer than /56, therefore I believe assignments of /56 and longer should not require SWIP. Since assignments /48 and shorter could find their way into the DFZ, therefore I believe they should require SWIP for operational reasons. In between /56 and /48 I'm mostly agnostic. But, I suppose we could go with "/52 or shorter" that way there isn't any confusion, that /56 does not require SWIP and /48 does require SWIP. Hope that helps. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
