Kevin Loch

Документированные сведения о публичной роли, решениях или участии Kevin Loch в правовых вопросах могут влиять на инвестиции в сети, доступ на рынок, инфраструктурную политику или границы ответственности; досье отделяет цитируемые сведения от проверки текущей должности.

Доступные данные охватывают Роли: Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1.

Последние 2026-09-26

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

Уверенность

Публичная роль: Цитируемые открытые источники указывают на Kevin Loch как на человека, связанного с решениями, судебными делами, управлением или эксплуатацией интернет-инфраструктуры; текущая должность и принадлежность ещё требуют проверки.

Связанные сведения

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

Последнее обновление: 2026-09-26

Роли

Role:Co-author of ARIN policy proposal 2005-1Ещё не оцененоИсторические сведения

Факты из источников

Участие в обсуждении политики RIR

1Участие по реестрам RIR

5Предложения с участием

9Всего сообщений в обсуждениях

30 авг. 2005 г.Первое участие

27 апр. 2006 г.Последнее участие

ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sitesПредложить альтернативу · 2 Сообщения в обсуждении
Согласованность позиции: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности
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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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 апр. 2006 г.
This is why it is important to have a large well known and static range (like a /16) set aside for PI assignments.
27 апр. 2006 г.
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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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 апр. 2006 г.
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 апр. 2006 г.
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 NumberНеизвестно · 1 Сообщения в обсуждении
Согласованность позиции: Явная позиция не заявлена
ARIN-2006-22006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal InfrastructureПредложить альтернативу · 1 Сообщения в обсуждении
Согласованность позиции: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности
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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: The proposed size is conditional on the intended internal use; the message does not prove that the proposal adopted it.
20 апр. 2006 г.
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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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 апр. 2006 г.
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 sitesНеизвестно · 4 Сообщения в обсуждении
Согласованность позиции: Явная позиция не заявлена
ARIN-prop-20ARIN-prop-20: 4-Byte AS Number Policy ProposalНеизвестно · 1 Сообщения в обсуждении
Согласованность позиции: Явная позиция не заявлена