[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

David Conrad david.conrad at nominum.com
Thu Apr 21 09:51:07 EDT 2005


On Apr 21, 2005, at 2:57 AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
>> It can also be
>> convincingly argued that (to paraphrase Dave Clark) the IPv6 truck is
>> driving into the same swamp as IPv4, yelling "me too, me too".
> If we don't have a commonly agreed definition of "swamp", then
> nobody is going to worry about driving into it.
> So, what is your definition of "IPv4 swamp" and what was
> wrong with this "swamp".

One definition of "the swamp" from draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-00.txt is:

   "Note that, as defined, this plan neither requires nor assumes the re-
    assignment of those parts of the legacy "class C" space that are not
    amenable to aggregation (sometimes called "the swamp")."

Since we're talking about IPv6, I'd think it would make sense to 
generalize this definition to be the unaggregatable prefixes in either 
global address pool.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list