[ppml] IPv6 Justifications

[David Conrad]

John,

On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 05:43  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> True, but the basis of RIPE-NCC and APNIC is membership.
> Pay the annual membership fee and get space.

I do not believe this to be an accurate reflection of the address 
allocation procedures of either APNIC or RIPE-NCC.

> in addition those regions have more "uptake" of IPv6
> compared to the ARIN region.

Given you agree the policies are similar, one might ask why the 
disparity.

> ARIN REGION Members feel the policy for getting IPv6 space
> is preventing them from doing so.

ARIN REGION Members approved the current policies.  If they wish to 
change those policies, the mechanisms to do so are well documented.  
There is no conspiracy here (at least any that I'm a party to :-)).

> If we want to see IPv6 start moving, we have to allow people
> to get the space, use the space,

Given the addressing and routing architecture of IPv6, I will admit 
some concerns about topological leaf node sites getting address space 
that would need to appear in the IPv6 default free zone.  However, 
perhaps that is just me.

> make requests to the backbone
> providers that they want native transport, etc.

I wasn't aware ARIN policies prohibited people from requesting native 
v6 transport.

> 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.

Feel free to propose such policies.  There is time before the next 
meeting, I believe (ARIN staff will correct me if I am wrong).

> 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.

Given v6 uses the EXACT SAME routing technology as v4, doesn't this 
concern make a small bit of sense?

Rgds,
-drc
(speaking personally)