[ppml] 2005-1 status
sleibrand at internap.com
Thu Feb 2 08:17:30 EST 2006
On 02/01/06 at 11:14pm -0500, Kevin Loch <kloch at hotnic.net> wrote:
> There certainly isn't anything resembling a consensus on where the
> dividing line should be. For that reason the latest revision proposals
> simply permit anyone with an IPv4 allocation/assignment to get an IPv6
> assignment. The idea is that those networks have already been evaluated
> by the best methods we currently have.
I wholeheartedly agree with that portion of the policy.
> Gauging the merits of IPv6 only networks is something that will take
> further work.
I agree. In my mind, this is a reason to be conservative in allocating
IPv6 PI space to organizations that do not qualify for IPv4 PI space.
> The concern over a flood of non-IPv4-pi applicants is valid but greatly
> overstated. How many non-isp networks in the ARIN region are multihomed
> right now with IPv6 and have /48's swipped from two different ISP's?
> I'm guessing not very many.
So if they don't exist yet, and it will take further work to determine
which of them should get IPv6 PI space, why are we creating a policy that
gives them IPv6 PI space no questions asked? Why shouldn't we create a
policy that gives IPv6 PI space to anyone who would qualify for IPv4 PI
space, and wait on codifying the IPv6-only portion of the policy until we
have a better idea of what the other non-PI multihoming options will be,
how easy it will be to renumber in the IPv6 world, and who needs IPv6-only
> As we gain experience with these assignments we can revise the policy if
Agreed, but it's much easier to go slowly and loosen the policy later than
to tighten it after you've already given early adopters space under a
More information about the ARIN-PPML