[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6Assignments for End Sites - Last Call

[Divins, David]

Paul, is that a backhanded support e-mail? :-)

Anyway, I think as a policy entity for address assignments these ARIN PI
policies are appropriate and correct.

If there are no feasible technical solutions to support the PI
assignments, providers are well within their rights not support the
them.  Just because you have been given a PI does not guarantee your
ability to use it.

I would love to see a more complete solution but I don't have one, and
the policy hammer seems to be the only weapon we have.

BTW, this is a support e-mail

Just my $.02
dsd

David Divins
Principal Engineer
ServerVault Corp.
(703) 652-5955
-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
vixie at isc.org
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:01 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent
IPv6Assignments for End Sites - Last Call

cathy wrote:

> Thanks for sending this Vince.  I too remember those days when things
> were melting down.   I often feel that no one else remembers.   It is
> hard to watch the same mistakes being made over and over again.

i remember the memory limits of the AGS+ and the original RP.  but these
are different mistakes than those.  i know folks who applied (pre-CIDR)
for a "class C" address for their houses, and got them.  are personal
dwellings likely to multihome?  well, actually, yes.  mine did, back in
the day, and many will, if you consider switching providers without
renumbering to be a derivative form of multihomage.

these are different mistakes than those.  the ipv4 swamp was mostly
populated pre-cidr, and there are still a lot of SMB's and SOHO's
therein.  the proposed
ipv6 swamp can be much smaller, and we should constrain it with all
kinds of rules about multiple locations, entity-size, requirements for
multihoming, total allocations per RIR per year.

since ietf did in fact decline to consider multihoming as a first order
problem to be solved during the ipv4->ipv6 transition, and since it's
rather late to resurrect DNS's A6 and DNAME RRs, and since shim6 and
mobile-ip and et-al appear to be hard sells to the gray-or-balding
sector of the operator community, we're left with PI.  but it's not the
same mistake as the V4 swamp.
it's a different mistake, owing its heritage to a whole line of other
mistakes, and mistaken or not it's the only proposal i've heard that's
got any legs.
_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml