[ppml] 2005-1 status

--On February 1, 2006 4:57:10 PM +0000 Michael.Dillon at wrote:

>> and yet i don't see ARIN's policy process approving the allocation of 
> any
>> significant amount of nonrouteable address space.  so while it's not any
>> sort of guaranty, it sure as heck is a guiding principle for 
> policymaking.
> When we moved from a /19 starter prefix for ISPs to
> a /20 starter prefix, we did not know how many ISPs
> would accept /20 prefixes. It was known that some ISPs
> had filtering policies that would not accept /20s.
> However, ARIN still went ahead with the policy change
> knowing that it was likely that these ISPs would not
> have full routeability. But since we were only moving the
> goalposts a small amount, we expected that the majority
> of those with /19 filters would adjust then to accomodate
> the /20 routes since it was a modest change.
It was also done in such a way that we made it clear to the
ISPs at first that the /19 was reserved for them and they could
get away with announcing the /19 if necessary.  It was also
pretty clear in the room that the majority of ISPs intended to
update their filters to match ARIN's changes.

The same was true when we passed 2002-3 which changed the
minimum PI direct assignment from /20 to /22.

> In the same way, if ARIN starts to hand out /48 PI blocks
> to IPv6 users, we cannot guarantee that they will be routable
> and we know that there are some people who are filtering 
> such routes. But because this is a modest change, i.e. it
> has the precondition of owning a v4 PI block, we expect that
> ISPs will adjust their practices. If we include in this policy
> that these /48s will come out of a specific address range which
> will not be used for other types of IPv6 allocation, then it
> is even more likely that ISPs will adjust their practices.
Because of the participation we have seen and based on past
practices, we have a reasonable expectation that routing policy
will evolve to match ARIN policy in this matter.

However, as it currently stands, it's hard to think of v6 as
globally routable anyway.



If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>