[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment

Paul Vixie wrote:
> cathy, you wrote:
>
>   
>> I think the little non-contiguous blocks should be used for this. I brought
>> it up at the meeting and I was shot down by folks who felt that it needed to
>> be contiguous so that it can be filtered appropriately.  It must not be
>> passe for some folks :-)
>>     
>
> it seems possible that a lot of people think that others are doing prefix
> length filtering, but that only a few people, or nobody, is actually doing
> it.  the policy process should be informed somehow.  any idea how we can
> objectively measure this, like a poll of operators in the region, or a poll
> of operators worldwide, or some kind of ping test using source addresses in
> various small prefixes, or some combination?  if the AC can design and accept
> experiments that would inform this policy, i feel sure that we could get the
> experiments run by various nonpartisans with expertise in the area.
>
> paul
>   

   Renesys did a lightning talk on this topic at NANOG 41 --
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/renesys-lighting.pdf
They have a page with a few provider's policies.   Both AT&T and
Level3 have a /24 limit.

 -Larry