[ppml] IPv6 Justifications
Don't see why its to late to submit a draft policy
for the upcoming meeting.
Bylaws say 30 days. Meeting is Monday 7-April.
Seems like we have at least till 28-Feb, to get stuff
to Richard, who could then get it posted by the 6-Mar
time to be in agreement with the By-laws.
Anyone what to work with me on making changes to the
existing policy and submitting that to ARIN ??
Note: Don't signup unless you intend to work quick and
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> Here Here...
> I agree. John, I know it is too late for a policy proposal
> for the upcoming meeting, but should we push this out anyway?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:44 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> > True, but the basis of RIPE-NCC and APNIC is membership.
> > Pay the annual membership fee and get space.
> > in addition those regions have more "uptake" of IPv6
> > compared to the ARIN region.
> > This isn't about RIPE-NCC or APNIC. Its about ARIN
> > and the policies as viewed from potential members, existing members
> > and those that want to make use of IPv6 space.
> > We are arguing over different points, when the basic point
> > is that.
> > ARIN REGION Members feel the policy for getting IPv6 space
> > is preventing them from doing so.
> > ARIN REGION internet users (non-members and members) are
> interested in
> > becoming early adopters of IPv6 services and technoloiges, yet the
> > policy prevents these people from getting the integers they need.
> > If we want to see IPv6 start moving, we have to allow people to get
> > the space, use the space, make requests to the backbone
> providers that
> > they want native transport, etc.
> > Why not allow early adopters, reguardless to if they have
> ARIN alloc'd
> > v4 space or not, to easily, cheaply get a /35, heck even a
> /48 would
> > be plenty for these folks.
> > Create an "early adopters micro-alloc" program.
> > a /48 is what, 65535 /64 neworks ? Should be plenty to
> > allow early adopters to play with stuff.
> > I'd love there to be the problem of "Route Table Growth" :)
> > Me thinks we are over worrying about the issues of v4 wrt v6.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:29 PM
> > > To: john at chagres.net
> > > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> > >
> > >
> > > John,
> > >
> > > On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:21 PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> > > > seems unlikely that we will repeat the swamp problem
> since people
> > > > can't even get the space to begin with.
> > >
> > > I thought RIPE-NCC and APNIC, with essentially the same
> > > policies, have
> > > allocated not insignificant amounts of space. Is this
> not correct?
> > >
> > > Rgds,
> > > -drc
> > > (Speaking personally)
> > >