[ppml] alternative to 2005-1

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Mon Feb 13 05:14:32 EST 2006

> > IMHO, a good policy would deal with each case separately.

> What if we break this up into two policies? 

I assume you mean two proposals. That would be bad.
You would need to duplicate much of the explanation
and justification text.

Just structure the policy so that orgs with a pre-existing
IPv4 PI block automatically get an IPv6 PI block with no
questions asked. Any worries about land rush are dealt with
by the IPv4 policy. And any policy which does NOT give out
IPv6 PI blocks to existing IPv4 PI holders is penalizing
early adopters which is wrong.

Then, talk about how orgs with no previous IPv4 blocks can get
an IPv6 PI block. After all we don't want them to get IPv4 PI
when their real need is for IPv6. In this case, there is some
danger of a land rush so the policymakers (us) need to think
about how to make some hurdles to keep it manageable.

> One could be along the lines
> of what Andrew proposed at the beginning of this thread, and would give
> IPv6 PI space to those who have (or qualify for) IPv4 PI space.  IMO 
> is urgent, and should be done at Montreal if possible.

A policy structured in two parts, could lead to a straw
poll for each separate part if there was a distinct difference
in support for each part. I don't believe it is necessary
to make separate proposals, just structure the proposal so
that it is easier to focus the discussion.

On the other hand, if I felt strongly about this I would
have submitted my own suggested wording. Since I haven't done
so, feel free to carry this forward as you wish. It's politics.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list