[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1
On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> scott wrote me an open letter:
> # The latest revision of 2005-1 only gives out IPv6 PI space to
> orgs who
> # qualify for IPv4 PI space. It no longer gives it to anyone who's
> # multihomed with IPv6. Do you still think it needs a sunset clause?
I personally think that the proposal is morphing too rapidly for the
safety of the debate on it.
I missed the part where
the consensus swung away from PI space for IPv6 multihomers. I think
I agree, a sunset clause is needed (or, at least, advisable) either way.
> sadly, yes i do. there has been reasonable debate here as to the
> long term
> viability of a "let ipv6 have an ipv4-like swamp" strategy. until
> we know
> either that (a) that won't happen, or (b) it's no big deal, any PI
> for ipv6 really should be experimental/limited. my own belief is
> that we
> will see a small number of initial allocations, then nothing for a
> time, and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the
Would that not be a good thing ? If all this discussion did were to
end some class of complaints,
I would feel it was worthwhile.
> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed. but, let's
> find out!
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net