[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last C

[David Conrad]

Hi,

> As said, I see the point that 65.000 subnets may still seem too  
> much, but
> for me 256 is too short.

I'm curious.  Given ip6.arpa is on nybble boundaries, why do people  
view prefix length in IPv6 on byte boundaries?

> But I still think we need to make sure that the wording of the policy
> ensures that users aren't trap again in a situation where they need to
> justify for requesting more subnets (which constitutes a privacy  
> and even
> security breach) and don't need to pay for that an extra amount  
> which makes
> them to look again for NAT-like solutions.

I personally think as long as people have to renumber when they  
change providers, there will be NAT.  PI allocation will address this  
for the early adopters as it did in IPv4, but in the long run, NATv6  
is pretty much assured given the current routing paradigm.

Rgds,
-drc