[arin-ppml] I Oppose 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Azinger, Marla <Marla.Azinger at ftr.com> wrote:
> Bill or anyone else that sees this as a missing value-
> What text would you suggest to resolve what you see as a missing value?
I need to think about it some more, but off the cuff I think I'd place
a few limits:
1. No organization can justify holding total IPv6 allocations that
exceed /26 under this policy.
Rationale: If you think you need more than that, you haven't thought
it through well enough.
2. No organization can justify more than two disaggregate allocations
under this policy irrespective of individual or total size.
Rationale: You get a couple tries but then you have to clear out and
return one of your earlier tries before you can make attempt number
3. Unless organization is mapping more than, and I'm picking a number
out of my hat here, 5 disaggregate IPv4 allocations with the
transition mechanism the the largest additional allocation they can
justify is a /32.
Rationale: you shouldn't be mapping the full 32 bits of the Ipv4
address into the upper 64 bits of address space unless you're juggling
so many different IPv4 allocations that it just isn't practical to do
it any other way... And transition mechanisms that need to consume
ARIN allocations but must map the full 32 bit address aren't credible.
Also I suggest ditching the 3-year resource review. We barely review
V4 resources as we approach a critical shortage. We're not seriously
going to review IPv6 allocations for a long, long time.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004