[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> So do you think if the RIR's decided that policy for IPv6 PI address
> allocation was similar to what it is today for IPv4....the industry 
would
> just have to 'figure it out' and would?  Could this actually happen if 
the
> requirement for existing holders of IPv4 space were required to go
> 'wholesale' to v6 to qualify?

The industry is good at dealing with constraints and figuring
out the optimal way to live within those constraints. But there
is a difference between a constraint and an order to change something.
A requirement for a wholesale transition to IPv6 is more like an
order than like a constraint.

ARIN policies, no matter how liberal they may appear to some,
are always constraints. I think our job is to make sure that
the constraints are not more restrictive than necessary. The 
industry could live with IPv6 policies that are more or less
parallels of the IPv4 policies, but I think that is making things
more constrained than necessary. The IPv6 address space is large
enough to allow for alternative addressing models. I think it
is wise to extend the current geo-topological addressing of 
the 5 regional RIRs to another level based on the major cities
within the RIR regions. But rather than constrain everyone to
go along with such a new model, I think it better to do this
as a parallel IPv6 address space using some of the large amount
of space reserved for other addressing models.

That way, industry has a real choice. I don't expect ISPs in
Montana to make the same choices as ISPs in New York but I do
expect that we will learn from the choices that ISPs make.

--Michael Dillon