[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: Last Call

On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Why should historical IPv4 assignments hold up deployment of IPv6?
>>
> People who have them and have the ability to independently multihome
> with their IPv4 assignments, but, cannot get IPv6 assignments on the
> same terms are unlikely to be willing to implement IPv6 on their
> networks as a result. This is a not insignificant portion of networks
> in North America.

Agreed, but if you want "the same terms", shouldn't
we take out the requirement for a legacy RSA to be in
place?

> For example, a site with
> 150 hosts in 16 class C network ranges would be expected
> to pick one class C to keep, renumber the hosts they had to
> into that range, and, return the others in order to be able to
> demonstrate "efficient utilization".

I would think that it is a waste of time for anyone
involved to do any sort of minor IPv4 reclamation and
further inhibit the world's v6 rollout because of it.

Maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of "Have an
AS?  Here's your /48".

Dale