[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1
I have broader objections. As stated elsewhere...
In general I don't think creating IPv6 policy based on IPv4 policy
requirements is a good idea.
I am not convinced it's a good idea to give IPv6-PI space to any
orginization that can not show a imediate need for more then a single /48.
I don't like the non-exsistant description of just exactly how a
originization would ever qualify for more then a single /48. This
seems to give ARIN staff nearly unlimited discretion as to what is
acceptable distribution of /64s within a orgization, and takes it
out of the hands of public policy groups.
I'm not convinced that current routing protocols will handle wide spread
use of /48 PI assignments. It seems to me that if ARIN passes this type of
policy, it is in effect forcing the internet community as a whole, to deal
with the consequences of such assignments. I'm not sure it's ARIN's place
to force such a showdown.
Perhaps I would feel better about such things, if all RIRs passed
simmilar policys simultainously... I just don't feel like ARIN should be
the trend setter with what I feel is a very liberal policy of giving out
/48 sized blocks of IPv6-PI space. However I don't think you could gain
anything aproaching consensus in the world wide community for 2005-1 as
it's currently written.
If 2005-1 passes at ARIN XVII, I feel it will be largely because people
may simply say... 'we must pass something with regard to IPv6 PI space'.
I would seriouly hate to think that we start adopting policy simply
because we couldn't come up with something better.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> What do you think is bad about the current revision of 2005-1? Do you
> prefer Andrew's /19 threshold? Or do you have broader objections?
> On 02/13/06 at 10:39am -0500, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:
>> As much as I'd like to join you guys in suggesting that
>> we just pass something no matter how bad it is... I can't.
>> Glenn Wiltse
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>> On 02/13/06 at 3:18pm -0000, Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:
>>>> and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the complaints
>>>> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed. but, let's find
>>> Yes, let's. I really think we should pass some sort of IPv6 PI policy at
>>> Montreal. If limiting the number of PI allocations allowed under the
>>> policy makes that possible by making the policy more palatable to a wider
>>> audience, I'm all for it. I just want to make sure that we don't set the
>>> limit too low.
>>> PPML mailing list
>>> PPML at arin.net