[ppml] IPv6 Justifications
John M. Brown
john at chagres.net
Mon Feb 24 20:43:45 EST 2003
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
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
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
> 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?
> (Speaking personally)
More information about the ARIN-PPML