[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation - Last Call (text revised)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:19 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> To clarify, the /24 maximum and the designated block apply ONLY
>> to subsequent allocations for transitional purposes. Subsequent allocations
>> for native IPv6 deployment are not restricted or encumbered in any way
>> other than the standards set forth in existing policy.
> Ah. In that case, I OPPOSE draft policy 2010-12 as written.
> I would support a revised version that applies the /24 limit to any
> subsequent allocation _for which the prior efficient utilization
> requirements have been waived_, regardless of whether its for
> transitional technologies.
hrm, I don't think the prior efficient utilization requirements were
waved. Just the need to show either:
o need to use a transition tech (and then get a block from a separate
set-aside block marked for this)
o need to show that the new deployment was somehow outside of the
original planned deployment(s).
the second part there is really for 'hey, we have to deploy this whole
new network over here, with v6... oops, our current /32 is
dedicated/allocated/appointed-for-use on our existing deployment...
which is just starting to roll out so we can't show 75% of the /48's
assigned, doh!' sort of problems. (which I've seen in more than one
instance in the last 2 years... fyi).
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.