Person profile

Person

Jason Schiller

Public policy participant

The available evidence covers Roles: author.

Source description Public policy participant

Latest 2026-10-04

Roles: author

Confidence

Information type: RIR policy participation

Related details

Jason Schiller
Author Uchenna N Ibekwe , Vu, Baokhanh N (Beth) , Jason Schiller
public people profile
Jason Schiller
Jason Schiller has been elected
public people profile
Jason Schiller
Jason Schiller, and myself.
public people profile
Jason Schiller
Schiller, Jason UUNET / Verizon Business
public people profile

Last updated: 2026-10-04

Roles

Role:authorNot yet assessedHistorical

Role:ARIN-region elected member (NRO Number Council)Not yet assessedHistorical

Role:ARIN XVIII meeting participant (UUNET / Verizon Business)Not yet assessedHistorical

Source facts

RIR Policy Participation

2RIRs participated

3Policies participated

3Total policy messages

Apr 21, 2006First participation

Apr 27, 2006Last participation

prop-029Proposal for discrete networks and national peeringUnknown · 0 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sitesUnknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
For 2005-1, the available record contains one technical reply. Schiller suggests that traffic engineering could lead to prefixes more specific than /48 and explicitly says he has not studied the required subdivision. This establishes neither a policy vote nor a change of position.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · For 2005-1, the available record contains one technical reply. Schiller suggests that traffic engineering could lead to prefixes more specific than /48 and explicitly says he has not studied the required subdivision. This establishes neither a policy vote nor a change of position.
Conditions: The comparison between /56 and IPv4 /24 is conditional reasoning, not an observed result or a guaranteed routing rule.
Apr 27, 2006
The routes in the Internet routing table will likely be more specific than a /48 assuming people want to slice and dice their aggregate to do traffic engineering... I haven't done a study to see how many slices people typically need.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Across the two policies, discussing a non-routed internal block is compatible with considering how end-site space might be advertised. The purposes differ. The messages reveal a shared concern with operational effects, but are insufficient to establish a settled, uniform routing principle or a contradiction.
Conditions: Internal-infrastructure micro-allocations and provider-independent end-site assignments are different cases; exploratory questions must not be treated as blanket endorsements.
Apr 21, 2006
In other words the text about "MUST NOT be routed" would only apply to micro-allocations for internal infrastructure.
Apr 27, 2006
In other words, small sites will have just enough PA space to take up one slot in the Internet routing table and make multihoming work.
ARIN-2006-22006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal InfrastructurePropose alternative · 2 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
In 2006-2, Schiller first separates the proposed internal-infrastructure rule from existing micro-allocation policy, then asks whether the RIR or IETF offers a viable path forward. These are complementary questions about scope and process, rather than a documented reversal.
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure
Assessment: Consistent · In 2006-2, Schiller first separates the proposed internal-infrastructure rule from existing micro-allocation policy, then asks whether the RIR or IETF offers a viable path forward. These are complementary questions about scope and process, rather than a documented reversal.
Conditions: The four routing and reclamation options are alternatives for discussion; the first message does not select a preferred option.
Apr 21, 2006
This proposal would not attempt to modify the existing micro-allocation policies.
Apr 21, 2006
The question I would like to ask is if there would be more or less support for the following:
Apr 24, 2006
So the question I have for you and everyone is where is the best place to pursue this?
2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Across the two policies, discussing a non-routed internal block is compatible with considering how end-site space might be advertised. The purposes differ. The messages reveal a shared concern with operational effects, but are insufficient to establish a settled, uniform routing principle or a contradiction.
Conditions: Internal-infrastructure micro-allocations and provider-independent end-site assignments are different cases; exploratory questions must not be treated as blanket endorsements.

RIR Policy Participation

2RIRs participated

3Policies participated

3Total policy messages

Apr 21, 2006First participation

Apr 27, 2006Last participation

prop-029Proposal for discrete networks and national peeringUnknown · 0 Discussion messages

Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated

ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sitesUnknown · 1 Discussion messages

Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency

For 2005-1, the available record contains one technical reply. Schiller suggests that traffic engineering could lead to prefixes more specific than /48 and explicitly says he has not studied the required subdivision. This establishes neither a policy vote nor a change of position.

2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · For 2005-1, the available record contains one technical reply. Schiller suggests that traffic engineering could lead to prefixes more specific than /48 and explicitly says he has not studied the required subdivision. This establishes neither a policy vote nor a change of position.

Conditions: The comparison between /56 and IPv4 /24 is conditional reasoning, not an observed result or a guaranteed routing rule.

Apr 27, 2006
The routes in the Internet routing table will likely be more specific than a /48 assuming people want to slice and dice their aggregate to do traffic engineering... I haven't done a study to see how many slices people typically need.

2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Across the two policies, discussing a non-routed internal block is compatible with considering how end-site space might be advertised. The purposes differ. The messages reveal a shared concern with operational effects, but are insufficient to establish a settled, uniform routing principle or a contradiction.

Conditions: Internal-infrastructure micro-allocations and provider-independent end-site assignments are different cases; exploratory questions must not be treated as blanket endorsements.

Apr 21, 2006
In other words the text about "MUST NOT be routed" would only apply to micro-allocations for internal infrastructure.

Apr 27, 2006
In other words, small sites will have just enough PA space to take up one slot in the Internet routing table and make multihoming work.

ARIN-2006-22006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal InfrastructurePropose alternative · 2 Discussion messages

Viewpoint consistency: Consistent

In 2006-2, Schiller first separates the proposed internal-infrastructure rule from existing micro-allocation policy, then asks whether the RIR or IETF offers a viable path forward. These are complementary questions about scope and process, rather than a documented reversal.

2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure

Assessment: Consistent · In 2006-2, Schiller first separates the proposed internal-infrastructure rule from existing micro-allocation policy, then asks whether the RIR or IETF offers a viable path forward. These are complementary questions about scope and process, rather than a documented reversal.

Conditions: The four routing and reclamation options are alternatives for discussion; the first message does not select a preferred option.

Apr 21, 2006
This proposal would not attempt to modify the existing micro-allocation policies.

Apr 21, 2006
The question I would like to ask is if there would be more or less support for the following:

Apr 24, 2006
So the question I have for you and everyone is where is the best place to pursue this?

2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites

Conditions: Internal-infrastructure micro-allocations and provider-independent end-site assignments are different cases; exploratory questions must not be treated as blanket endorsements.