[ppml] IPv6 PI space for addressing

[brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 6:08 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 PI space for addressing
> 
> 
> > I've been watching the debate over IPv6 PI space for well 
> over a year
> > (mostly on NANOG), and one thing stands out to me.  Many 
> moons ago, if 
> an
> > organization intended to run IPv4 in their network, they 
> could secure an
> > IPv4 allocation even if they did not intend to route that 
> prefix over 
> the
> > Internet.
> 
> They still can.

True enough.  I should have said that the organization could *easily* secure
an IPv4 allocation once upon a time.  As I said previously, our network is
not large enough to justify a /20, whereas 15 years ago I'm reasonably sure
the company could've gotten at least a class C allocation.

> > I believe address depletion is still a valid concern with 
> IPv6, and the
> > draft policies do address this concern.  However, I believe the 
> restrictions
> > on IPv6 PI space should recognize the need for such space 
> outside of the
> > Internet routing table.
> 
> Once an LIR has a /32, nobody says that they have to route all
> of it. They may announce all of it for convenience, but they
> are free to blackhole all incoming traffic if they want.

Having gone to the trouble of justifying its use, an LIR is likely to
announce all or some part of that network, now or in the near future.  What
I'm asking for is a prefix that will never, ever be publicly routed.  That's
what I meant by "outside of the Internet routing table."

-Brian Knight
Sr. Network Engineer
Mizuho Securities USA
http://www.mizuho-sc.com/

* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself.