[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> > And YOU are being short-sighted if you think that 
> > ARIN policy cannot adapt itself to changing situations
> > before 2011. During that timespan of approximately
> > 5 years, ARIN could easily manage revision of the 
> > IPv6 PI policy 3 times, if that is needed in order
> > to respond to new developments.
> 
> Supposed that we approve 2005-1.  If things take off, we could then
> deploy several hundred thousand routes 

Before the August 11th deadline for the next ARIN
meeting? I don't think so. 

> (on the order of the v4 network
> today), and then we try to decide that we want to reverse ourselves and
> have several thousand people undo the work that they've done and deploy
> a different solution? 

You are completely missing the point. There is an
ARIN member meeting roughly once every 6 months. New
policies proposed more than 60 days prior to the meeting
can be passed by the meeting and will make it through the
last call, AC and BoT within a couple of more months or so.
There is no way that kind of growth could happen in such
a short period of time.

But, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that
these new PI addresses really take off in a big way and
projections show that it will be in the tens of thousands
by year end. The BoT does have the power to halt all PI
applications until the members can reconsider the policy.
This would be an extremely unusual action but anyone familiar
with ARIN allocation statistics knows that the numbers of
PI allocations you are talking about describe an
EXTREMELY UNUSUAL SITUATION.

> This is exactly why extreme care is necessary here: the genie *CANNOT*
> be put back into the bottle.

Nobody has proposed that genies be let out of bottles.
What has been proposed is loosening the belt for a while
to enable businesses the freedom to deploy IPv6 networks
the way that they want to. Belts can be progressively loosened
or tightened as many times as is necessary.

If IPv6 PI does prove to be a bad move, it is BETTER FOR
ARIN TO MAKE THE MISTAKE and then correct it. Otherwise we
risk being the target of restraint of trade lawsuits. It simply
is not legally prudent to disallow PI allocations in IPv6 and
it is not legally prudent for the representatives of large
ISPs to vote against 2005-1 without having consulted their
legal/regulatory departments.

--Michael Dillon