[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
> George, a point of clarification:
> 1. Current status: There is a /10 reserved for IPv6 transitional
> technologies. Essentially this is intended to provide numbers
> for things like NAT64 gateways and the like.
How small of a chunk do you give to someone with a NAT64 gateway? Is it
given to providers and aggregated or is it issued to end users? If the
latter, how is that going to get routed? If the former, that must then
assume that the end user's upstream has no more IPs to assign for such a
purpose (not even one v4 IP tunneled over v6!) out of their aggregate.
I imagine the way it is going to shake out is that the ISP is going to
say "here is your block of IPv6 addresses and here is ONE v4 IP you can
use to talk to the Obsonet."
That could become a big mess.
> 2. This proposal would take away the ability to use the /10 for
> transitional technologies. It would not establish criteria in
> there place. It would hold the /10 in reserve until October,
> and then put it back into the normal free pool.
Yeah, this is all going to be somewhat of a mess. My little table clock
that gives me the weather and connects over the wireless in the house
doesn't know from v6. When my provider changes to v6, my little weather
clock stops giving me the weather. A lot of little embedded gadgets
(picture frames?) are going to stop working when that happens.
Are any "transitional technologies" being developed? I have an idea ...
how about "wholesale abandonment" as a transitional technology! Now if
only I could get Cisco to support IPv6 in OSPF on my ASA5550 so I could
announce v6 VPN routes into my network ...
> The theory offered by the proposer is that this creates an
> opportunity for us to develop policy over the next 11 months
> to better address the best use of that reserved space.
I can understand that. It sort of lights a fire under people to get
something done. But that can backfire if getting "something" done just
for the sake of it is the goal.
> In my opinion, we have done spectacularly poorly when we
> have attempted to rush policy changes in the best of
> circumstances and this would create a need to rush a
> contentious policy forward to consensus against a tight
> deadline or return the reservation to the general free pool.
Agreed, make it 2012 and I might be more inclined to support it.
> I cannot speak to the author's intent, but, in my opinion, this
> will effectively be a way to back-door a removal of the
> reservation and return the 4.10 space to the general
> free pool with an 11 month delay.
Yes, it would effectively throw that segment back into the pool
regardless of intent, of course that date could always be changed.
I am leaning against still.