[ppml] IPv6 PI to legacy IPv4 holders

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake <briand at ca.afilias.info>
> I propose adding one additional condition under which an organization
> would be eligible for receiving an IPv6 PI allocation from ARIN:
>
> The organization currently has been assigned an ASN and is actively
> using it.

The problem with that is that it's trivial to get an ASN; effectively 
setting the bar for PIv6 space to "anyone who wants it".  While one can 
debate how low the bar should be (and such debate comes up regularly), I 
cannot support removing the bar entirely.

> The rationale is, if an organization has an ASN, they are actively
> involved in multihoming, which is the one situation under which
> current PA assignment would not meet the needs of the organization.

In v4, we require a multihomed end user to justify at least a /22 to get a 
direct assignment.  Today, that bar is inherited for v6.

There was a proposal in prior cycles to reduce that bar to a /24; it was 
defeated for a variety of reasons, most recently due to the perceived 
potential for abuse by spammers.  While I find that unfortunate, I believe 
that is the fair and correct way to open things up so that those legacy 
holders with a /24 (who could justify such again today) could get PIv6 
space.

I am strongly opposed to giving PIv6 space to Legacy Class C holders who 
couldn't justify a /24 today simply because they happened to get a block 
back in the days when nobody was paying attention.  I'm definitely opposed 
to giving PIv6 space to those folks and _not_ giving PIv6 space to folks who 
potentially have equal or better utilization today.

I do thank many Legacy folks for their contribution 15+ years ago, but I've 
seen too many folks who swiped (not SWIP'd) a Class C from a past employer 
and are using it for their two-PC home network today to believe that simply 
being a legacy holder means that one made a meaningful contribution to the 
birth of the Internet or deserves any sort of special treatment, e.g. that 
legacy status alone justifies PIv6 space and thus a slot in the v6 DFZ. 
Extending that proposal to non-Legacy ASN holders (including folks who get 
an ASN tomorrow solely to dodge the host count requirements) is 
unconscionable, IMHO.

> If ARIN is interested in encouraging IPv6 adoption, extending IPv6 PI
> allocations to all organizations that have an actively used ASN, is the
> most logical way to pursue that interest.

According to the BoT, ARIN is not in the business of "encouraging" 
particular technologies.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking