[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Feb 21 05:46:47 EST 2006

> > I would hope that no one questioned whether SITA, Arinc, and Inmarsat
> > were "service providers"!
> definitely not, along with the us post, ups, and consolidated 
> just in case you missed it, the "i" in "arin" stands for "internet"

And in case you missed it, we have only 6 years supply 
of IPv4 addresses left. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html
We should be applauding any organization that is taking
the initiative to implement IPv6 and we should be making
it easy for these organizations to get the IPv6 addresses
that they want. There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses
in the foreseeable future. If an organization with multiple
sites considers themselves to be a network operator, give
them a /32.

But let's not stop there. Let's do direct allocations to
smaller organizations with multiple sites. Let's allocate
one /48 per site to any organization that has the intention
of multihoming their Internet connectivity using IPv6. We
have the addresses to spare so why skimp at this stage?

It makes sense to round up allocations to nibble boundaries
such as /44, /40, and /36 because there is no shortage of
IPv6 addresses. There is no good reason to hold back on this.

Anybody who points to problems with the global routing table
is missing the point. ARIN does not mandate how ISPs operate
and it does not mandate how end users contract for ISP services.
If ARIN actions create a problem between ISPs and their customers
then let the ISPs and their customer solve the problem, not ARIN.
There are far more intelligent and creative people available
in the ISPs and the end user organizations so let us not try
to patronize them by telling them that /48 route announcements
cannot work.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list