[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Feb 13, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> scott wrote me an open letter:
>
> # The latest revision of 2005-1 only gives out IPv6 PI space to  
> orgs who
> # qualify for IPv4 PI space.  It no longer gives it to anyone who's
> # multihomed with IPv6.  Do you still think it needs a sunset clause?
>

I personally think that the proposal is morphing too rapidly for the  
safety of the debate on it.
I missed the part where
the consensus swung away from PI space for IPv6 multihomers. I think  
that's needed.

I agree, a sunset clause is needed (or, at least, advisable) either way.

> sadly, yes i do.  there has been reasonable debate here as to the  
> long term
> viability of a "let ipv6 have an ipv4-like swamp" strategy.  until  
> we know
> either that (a) that won't happen, or (b) it's no big deal, any PI  
> policy
> for ipv6 really should be experimental/limited.  my own belief is  
> that we
> will see a small number of initial allocations, then nothing for a  
> long
> time, and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the  
> complaints

Would that not be a good thing ? If all this discussion did were to  
end some class of complaints,
I would feel it was worthwhile.

> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed.  but, let's  
> find out!
>

Yes, indeed.

> paul

Marshall

> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml