[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Owen DeLong]

--On February 1, 2006 4:57:10 PM +0000 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> and yet i don't see ARIN's policy process approving the allocation of 
> any
>> significant amount of nonrouteable address space.  so while it's not any
>> sort of guaranty, it sure as heck is a guiding principle for 
> policymaking.
> 
> When we moved from a /19 starter prefix for ISPs to
> a /20 starter prefix, we did not know how many ISPs
> would accept /20 prefixes. It was known that some ISPs
> had filtering policies that would not accept /20s.
> 
> However, ARIN still went ahead with the policy change
> knowing that it was likely that these ISPs would not
> have full routeability. But since we were only moving the
> goalposts a small amount, we expected that the majority
> of those with /19 filters would adjust then to accomodate
> the /20 routes since it was a modest change.
> 
It was also done in such a way that we made it clear to the
ISPs at first that the /19 was reserved for them and they could
get away with announcing the /19 if necessary.  It was also
pretty clear in the room that the majority of ISPs intended to
update their filters to match ARIN's changes.

The same was true when we passed 2002-3 which changed the
minimum PI direct assignment from /20 to /22.

> In the same way, if ARIN starts to hand out /48 PI blocks
> to IPv6 users, we cannot guarantee that they will be routable
> and we know that there are some people who are filtering 
> such routes. But because this is a modest change, i.e. it
> has the precondition of owning a v4 PI block, we expect that
> ISPs will adjust their practices. If we include in this policy
> that these /48s will come out of a specific address range which
> will not be used for other types of IPv6 allocation, then it
> is even more likely that ISPs will adjust their practices.
> 
Because of the participation we have seen and based on past
practices, we have a reasonable expectation that routing policy
will evolve to match ARIN policy in this matter.

However, as it currently stands, it's hard to think of v6 as
globally routable anyway.

[snip]

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060201/a4d82400/attachment.sig>