[ppml] alternative to 2005-1

Daniel Golding dgolding at burtongroup.com
Thu Feb 9 12:54:17 EST 2006

On 2/9/06 12:45 PM, "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>>>  Also, why do you specify /19 for #5 under  Shouldn't someone with
>>>  a IPv4 PI /22 be able to get an IPv6 /48?
>> It is just a line in the sand.
>> I personally believe that a /22 is too small, however there are
>> those who will think that an org with a /22 should be able to obtain
>> a IPv6 PI address space.
> Note: a /22 is only 2^10 addresses, or 1024. That's a pretty darn small
> site, if you ask me.
> A /19 is somewhat better, namely, 8192.
> Still, I fear there are 10s to 100s of thousands of organizations in
> this size. Remember, each entity with a PI assignment translates into
> a routing slot in the DFZ.
> Heck, even if we set a threshold of /16, we'd be saying "anyone who
> can justify a class B assignment". I suspect that the number of end
> sites meeting that criteria is pretty large.
> I'd feel a lot more comfortable picking a threshold if I had a rough
> idea of how many entities we're talking about who would qualify. Given
> the above, even /19 sounds too low.
> In the absense of data, I'd say be _very _ conservative, e.g., start
> with a /16 (or higher).

Again, we are headed down a road that we have been on before. The last
2005-1 was defeated because of this point - the bar was set too high. I can
understand those who wish for no end-site multihoming. I can understand
those who wish for end-site multihoming similar to IPv4. However, I can't
understand going in circles, which is exactly what we are doing.

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

- Dan

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list