[ppml] IPv6 Justifications

[John M. Brown]

Don't see why its to late to submit a draft policy
for the upcoming meeting.

Bylaws say 30 days.  Meeting is  Monday 7-April.

Seems like we have at least till 28-Feb, to get stuff
to Richard, who could then get it posted by the 6-Mar
time to be in agreement with the By-laws.

Anyone what to work with me on making changes to the
existing policy and submitting that to ARIN ??

Note: Don't signup unless you intend to work quick and
hard :)

john brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of McBurnett, Jim
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> 
> 
> Here Here...
> I agree. John, I know it is too late for a policy proposal 
> for the upcoming meeting, but should we  push this out anyway?
> 
> Jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John M. Brown [mailto:john at chagres.net]
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 8:44 PM
> > To: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> > 
> > 
> > True, but the basis of RIPE-NCC and APNIC is membership.
> > Pay the annual membership fee and get space.
> > 
> > in addition those regions have more "uptake" of IPv6
> > compared to the ARIN region.
> > 
> > This isn't about RIPE-NCC or APNIC.   Its about ARIN
> > and the policies as viewed from potential members, existing members 
> > and those that want to make use of IPv6 space.
> > 
> > We are arguing over different points, when the basic point
> > is that.
> > 
> > ARIN REGION Members feel the policy for getting IPv6 space
> > is preventing them from doing so.
> > 
> > ARIN REGION internet users (non-members and members) are 
> interested in 
> > becoming early adopters of IPv6 services and technoloiges, yet the 
> > policy prevents these people from getting the integers they need.
> > 
> > If we want to see IPv6 start moving, we have to allow people to get 
> > the space, use the space, make requests to the backbone 
> providers that 
> > they want native transport, etc.
> > 
> > 
> > Why not allow early adopters, reguardless to if they have 
> ARIN alloc'd 
> > v4 space or not, to easily, cheaply get a /35, heck even a 
> /48 would 
> > be plenty for these folks.
> > 
> > Create an "early adopters micro-alloc" program.
> > 
> > a /48 is what, 65535  /64 neworks  ?   Should be plenty to 
> > allow early adopters to play with stuff.
> > 
> > I'd love there to be the problem of "Route Table Growth" :)
> > 
> > Me thinks we are over worrying about the issues of v4 wrt v6.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:29 PM
> > > To: john at chagres.net
> > > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 Justifications
> > > 
> > > 
> > > John,
> > > 
> > > On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 03:21  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> > > > seems unlikely that we will repeat the swamp problem 
> since people 
> > > > can't even get the space to begin with.
> > > 
> > > I thought RIPE-NCC and APNIC, with essentially the same
> > > policies, have 
> > > allocated not insignificant amounts of space.  Is this 
> not correct?
> > > 
> > > Rgds,
> > > -drc
> > > (Speaking personally)
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>