[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!
> As such, I cannot advocate such a policy. It is likely to create a TWD
> or swamp of relatively large proportions as every man, woman, and child
> makes a run on IPv6 address space.
Here we go again. Somebody declares that a policy will
create a swamp and that is a bad thing. But no definition
is offered for the term "swamp" except a cryptic acronym.
All I know about IPv4 is that there was a swamp and it
must have been a good thing because it happened during
the exponential growth phase of the IPv4 network when
the Internet moved out of the universities and laboratories
to become a USEFUL NETWORK for businesses and ordinary
folks. If we need a swamp to do that, then I vote for this
swamp thingy, whatever it is.
> The goal of a small routing table
> must remain; there are some great technology ideas behind that goal.
We all know that ISPs control the size of their routing
table through BGP filters. ARIN does not need to be concerned
with limiting the size of this table through policy. IP
address blocks are useful even if they do not appear in
every ISP's routing table. Not all companies require global
connectivity. For instance, in China many businesses are satisfied
if they have access to the national Internet. And in America
many ISPs are satisfied if they have access to an Internet that
does not include China.
Those are the facts of Internet life today. ARIN policies
cannot mandate anyone to accept a route prefix and the
techniques of BGP routing are so complex, that it is madness
for ARIN to try to predict how ISPs will react to a particular
ARIN policy. ARIN exists to serve the public, not to serve ISPs.
If there is public demand for IP address allocations direct from
ARIN then we must meet that demand until such time as it is
demonstrated that such address prefixes are useless.