Profil de personne
PersonneKevin Loch est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.
Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1.
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de Kevin Loch.
public people profile
Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-26
Faits sourcés
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: 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
Évaluation: Cohérent · 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.
Réserves: 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.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: 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
Évaluation: Cohérent · 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.
Réserves: 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.
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
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.