[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Yes, of course... I didn't mean that to sound exclusive. The idea was
> that you could do your justification entirely based upon IPv6 use/need, or
> you could bootstrap into it by demonstrating prior use of IPv4.
While I would generally prefer to keep references to v4 out of v6
policy, I think this would be useful. It would simplify the
majority of applications, reducing ARIN staff work. It would
also lessen the controversey over whatever requirements we set
for non v4 networks.
> suggestion was that case, IPv6 assignments could be scaled to how much
> IPv4 space was being advertized, since that's much easier to verify
> than use-claims,
Do they need to be scaled? Does anyone have more than 1m subnets
> but I think the consensus was that that was too much
> of an unfair compounding of previous-generation early-adopter
> advantage, so number of sites was a better metric.
One way to avoid the taint of early v4 delegations is to
make the v4 exception only apply to assignments/allocations
made by ARIN.