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

Glenn Wiltse iggy at merit.edu
Mon Feb 13 14:12:43 EST 2006

    I forgot to include my objection to the use of the term 'end site'
in the policy. This term as currently defined in ARIN policy does not
apply to ARIN, and ARIN should not be assigning IPv6 space directly
to a 'end site' given the current definition of the term.

   Why should dificulty in renumbering be the determining factor? Perhaps
it would be just as easy to create a way to easily renumber IPv6 space
as it would be to create new routing protocols to deal with /48s 
everywhere. Much of my reasoning for wanting to avoid direct assignments
of /48s has to do with routing issues, and not wanting to create policy
that is surely going to cause problems with routing scalablity.

   I don't think it's a question of how many direct IPv4 assignments
there are now, it's how many direct IPv6 assignments there could be.

  I guess for the most part, we are going to have to agree to disagree
on these matters.

Glenn Wiltse

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> On 02/13/06 at 11:54am -0500, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:
>>    I have broader objections.  As stated elsewhere...
>> In general I don't think creating IPv6 policy based on IPv4 policy
>> requirements is a good idea.
> Maybe not in the long term, but I think it's the best way to migrate from
> IPv4 to IPv6.  For users who're starting up with IPv6 in the future we'll
> need a different policy, but I don't think we're at the point yet where we
> can reach consensus on what that policy should be.
>> I am not convinced it's a good idea to give IPv6-PI space to any
>> organization that can not show a immediate need for more then a single /48.
> As I and others have stated before, I think the determinant of whether an
> org needs PI space should be difficulty of renumbering, not strictly the
> size of the netblock needed.
>> I don't like the non-existent description of just exactly how a
>> organization would ever qualify for more then a single /48. This
>> seems to give ARIN staff nearly unlimited discretion as to what is
>> acceptable distribution of /64s within a organization, and takes it
>> out of the hands of public policy groups.
> How is this different than the rules for LIRs giving out >/48 allocations?
>> I'm not convinced that current routing protocols will handle wide spread
>> use of /48 PI assignments. It seems to me that if ARIN passes this type of
>> policy, it is in effect forcing the internet community as a whole, to deal
>> with the consequences of such assignments. I'm not sure it's ARIN's place
>> to force such a showdown.
> How many IPv4 PI blocks have been assigned?  What would happen to the
> routing table if we introduced that many IPv6 PI blocks?  IMO "not much".

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list