[ppml] IPv6 Justifications
jmcburnett at msmgmt.com
Mon Feb 24 20:59:45 EST 2003
I agree. John, I know it is too late for a policy proposal for the upcoming meeting, but should we push this out anyway?
> -----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)
More information about the ARIN-PPML