الملف الشخصي
شخصتُعرّف السجلات العامة المستشهد بها Kevin Loch كشخص مرتبط بقرارات أو دعاوى أو حوكمة أو عمليات ذات صلة بالبنية التحتية للإنترنت؛ ولا يزال المنصب والانتماء الحاليان بحاجة إلى تحقق.
تشمل الأدلة المتاحة الأدوار: Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1.
New proposal by Kevin Loch merged with
public people profile
From : Kevin Loch <kloch () hotnic net>
public people profile
آخر تحديث: 2026-09-26
حقائق موثقة
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
Loch proposes a large, stable, well-known range for provider-independent assignments so operators can apply different prefix limits by range. He leaves open whether the reservation should be global or per RIR. One retained contribution cannot establish a subsequent change or sustained position.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · Loch proposes a large, stable, well-known range for provider-independent assignments so operators can apply different prefix limits by range. He leaves open whether the reservation should be global or per RIR. One retained contribution cannot establish a subsequent change or sustained position.
الشروط: The /16 is a proposed reserved range, not a proposed /16 assignment to every end site. · The comment is a design suggestion rather than an unconditional vote on the whole policy.
This is why it is important to have a large well known and static range (like a /16) set aside for PI assignments.
Whether a /16 should be set aside by each RIR or one globally is an interesting question.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
التقييم: متسق · A /96 for small internal uses and a large reserved range containing public provider-independent assignments solve different routing problems. The former aims to reduce accidental announcements; the latter makes public assignment ranges recognisable to filters. The numerical prefix difference therefore does not establish a contradiction.
الشروط: This comparison depends on the stated internal-use and public-assignment contexts. · It does not establish how Loch would resolve every routing-table or address-utilisation tradeoff.
Would a /96 be sufficient if the intended use is for /126-/128's? That might also reduce the concern about them being inadvertantly announced.
different minimum prefix size limits by range. This is why it is important to have a large well known and static range (like a /16) set aside for PI assignments.
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
Loch asks whether a /96 would suffice for /126 to /128 internal uses and might reduce accidental announcements. This establishes a conditional design suggestion, not a final vote or a sequence of positions from which consistency over time could be assessed.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · Loch asks whether a /96 would suffice for /126 to /128 internal uses and might reduce accidental announcements. This establishes a conditional design suggestion, not a final vote or a sequence of positions from which consistency over time could be assessed.
الشروط: The proposed size is conditional on the intended internal use; the message does not prove that the proposal adopted it.
Would a /96 be sufficient if the intended use is for /126-/128's? That might also reduce the concern about them being inadvertantly announced.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
التقييم: متسق · A /96 for small internal uses and a large reserved range containing public provider-independent assignments solve different routing problems. The former aims to reduce accidental announcements; the latter makes public assignment ranges recognisable to filters. The numerical prefix difference therefore does not establish a contradiction.
الشروط: This comparison depends on the stated internal-use and public-assignment contexts. · It does not establish how Loch would resolve every routing-table or address-utilisation tradeoff.
Would a /96 be sufficient if the intended use is for /126-/128's? That might also reduce the concern about them being inadvertantly announced.
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
different minimum prefix size limits by range. This is why it is important to have a large well known and static range (like a /16) set aside for PI assignments.