Kevin Loch

Das BTW-Verzeichnis bündelt öffentliche Datensätze zu Kevin Loch.

Die verfügbaren Daten umfassen Rollen: Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1.

Zuletzt beobachtet 2026-09-26

Rollen: Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1

Konfidenz

Öffentliche Rolle: Die zitierten öffentlichen Quellen nennen Kevin Loch als Person im Zusammenhang mit Entscheidungen, Verfahren, Governance oder Betrieb der Internet-Infrastruktur; aktuelle Funktion und Zugehörigkeit müssen weiterhin geprüft werden.
Informationstyp: Die dokumentierte öffentliche Rolle, Entscheidungen oder rechtliche Beteiligung von Kevin Loch können Netzinvestitionen, Marktzugang, Infrastrukturpolitik oder Verantwortungsgrenzen beeinflussen; dieses Dossier trennt zitierte Nachweise von der Prüfung der aktuellen Funktion.

Zugehörige Details

Kevin Loch
New proposal by Kevin Loch merged with
public people profile
Kevin Loch
From : Kevin Loch <kloch () hotnic net>
public people profile

Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-09-26

Rollen

Role:Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Quellenbelegte Fakten

Beteiligung an RIR-Richtlinien

1Beteiligte RIRs

5Beteiligte Richtlinien

9Richtliniennachrichten insgesamt

30.08.2005Erste Beteiligung

27.04.2006Letzte Beteiligung

ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sitesAlternativvorschlag · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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.
27.04.2006
This is why it is important to have a large well known and static range (like a /16) set aside for PI assignments.
27.04.2006
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
Bewertung: Konsistent · 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.
Bedingungen: 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.
20.04.2006
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.
27.04.2006
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.
ARIN-2005-92005-9: 4-Byte AS NumberUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
ARIN-2006-22006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal InfrastructureAlternativvorschlag · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: The proposed size is conditional on the intended internal use; the message does not prove that the proposal adopted it.
20.04.2006
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
Bewertung: Konsistent · 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.
Bedingungen: 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.
20.04.2006
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.
ARIN-prop-18ARIN-prop-18: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sitesUnbekannt · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
ARIN-prop-20ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy ProposalUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben