[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process - revised
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:04 AM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> The RIR isn't the only organization to allocate IPs. The ISP
> distinction is important.
> No matter how well ARIN pools allocations, ISPs can allocate /48s
> or /56s from e.g. in their shorter /32 prefix to downstream
> Multi-homed customers of the ISP who do not otherwise have, want, or
> need their own AS number (or may become multi-homed at a later time
> after receiving the allocation from their ISP).
> As they have done in IPv4. You break connectivity if you only
> accept /32s from the ISP /32 PA block, which results in inability
> to effectively, safely filter.
A: The status quo is that IPv6 ISP cutouts smaller than /32 are not
separately routable on the backbone. Today. Right now. Some ISPs route
them but enough don't that you're only fully connected via the ISP
from which you got the IPs.
B. This is a good thing. Lots of bad mojo from announcing cutouts.
Makes a godawful mess of filtering and supporting it impairs a number
of next generation routing architectures. Better for everybody if
folks who mutlihome get their IP addresses direct from ARIN.
>> 6.5.7. Existing IPv6 address space holders
> [...]> manner approaching 220.127.116.11 by increasing the prefix length of all
>>registrants within a particular pool to some specific minimum prefix
>>length for the pool.
> Increasing the prefix length of an existing registration.... Also
> known as: taking back part of an allocation made earlier seems an
> exceeding harmful proposition.
Clarification: "increasing" in this context is intended to mean
"shorten" the prefix length, increasing the size of the allocated
block. Giving more, not taking back. Wordsmithing suggestions welcome.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004