[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

> Right.  One of the goals in IPv6 policy is minimizing routes in the DFZ,
> and it's easiest to do that if everyone (or nearly everyone) has the
> same size blocks because it's easy to filter deaggregates that way. 
> While a /32 is way, way too large for most LIRs, it's large enough that
> nearly all LIRs
> will fit in it, it's a convenient number, and everyone can filter anything
> longer than /32 (except in the PIv6 block, where it's /48) with impunity
> unless they specifically want deaggregates.  Since we have absolutely no
> clue how to route the half a billion /32s in 2000::/3, there is no
> reason to
> give out longer prefixes -- and plenty of reasons not to.

I completely understand the importance of the allocation of blocks with
as short a prefix and as consistent as possible, but thanks for the
clarification. Out of curiosity, who was the original classification of
size (/32 and /48) distribution designed by? Was it the community as all
other ARIN policies are created by?

Also, I don't pay attention to what other RIR's are doing, is this
allocation scheme the same across all RIR's?

> Some are
> knowingly hoarding address space in anticipation of financial gain, aka
> speculation, and opting out of the need-based system the community has
> endorsed and which gave them those oversize (due to inefficiency)
> assignments in the first place.

Sounds like extortion to me. The only way anyone can profit from holding
v4 addresses in speculation is if there is demand. Someone will always
try to make a quick buck. Although * won't see any of such financial
gain, any company that we do work for won't have to dig into their
pockets because of it either.

Unfortunately, IPv6 does not have enough traction to make itself or it's
importance understood across the board. Perhaps most business are
thinking the cost is too high for the R&D at this time, but that is too
short term thinking for me. The costs of doing something later may be
far higher. What ever happened to due diligence anyway?

Another possible issue perhaps, will there be any network operators who
will filter routes that are held or were knowingly acquired 'illegally'
from a legacy holder nearer or after the runout?

> If we did a straw poll of folks
> favoring
> carrots vs. sticks, I'm quite sure the former would outnumber the latter by
> an overwhelming margin.

My consensus from following this and other lists is that I concur with
this statement.

Steve