[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)
On 11/17/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Ignoring the personal attacks, I've answered Ted at length in private email.
Owen has indeed responded to the DFZ issue to me via private e-mail. It
is a logical, concrete response that really has nothing at all with the
items listed here. I wish that he would have included it in his
> Publicly, I will state:
> 1. In IPv4, address policy and routing policy got tied together because
> of the need to manage the tradeoff between scarcity and table
> growth. In IPv6, scarcity is no longer an issue.
> 2. An ARIN allocation is not guaranteed to be routable and address
> policy should focus on good stewardship of the address space
> leaving the routing issues for groups of operators to coordinate
> in a more operational forum.
> 3. The fee recommendation in the rationale is not a fee reduction.
> It focuses on making it possible for the board to eliminate the
> disparity of IPv4 and IPv6 fees at the very small end. This is
> not likely to increase the number of smaller ISPs that multihome,
> but, is intended to decrease the number of smaller ISPs that
> procrastinate IPv6 deployment as long as possible since
> they will no longer be facing a $1,000 disincentive to do so.
> 4. If there are others who feel that explaining that this policy
> will reduce DFZ growth if it has any impact on the DFZ
> is an important element in the rationale, please let me know.
> If there is significant support for this, I will include it.