[ppml] 2005-1 status

Scott Leibrand 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
PI space?

> As we gain experience with these assignments we can revise the policy if
> necessary.

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
looser policy.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list