[ppml] 2005-1 status
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 25 08:55:00 EST 2006
> > Human factor. If renumbering could be done easily enough as was for
> > example envisioned with A6, then I think using provider ip
> > would be seen as less of a problem.
> The lack of renumbering capability in IPv6 does not mean
> that renumbering an IPv6 network is either harder or
> easier than renumbering an IPv4 network. There is no
> agreement on whether or not renumbering capability belongs
> in the base IP protocol or not.
> Lot's of effort has gone into a separate protocol for
> and into tools to support that separate renumbering
> protocol. I refer you to the IETF's DHC working group:
> Here is one such DHCPv6 tool: http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/
> PI addresses are not the only implemented solution to
> the problem of renumbering an enterprise network. If we
> decide not to issue PI v6 allocations to end users, we
> are not making renumbering harder or easier. It is likely
> that well managed v6 networks will be able to easily make
> the transition and poorly managed v6 networks will struggle
> to make the transition. ARIN policies do not impact whether
> or not a network is poorly managed.
> However, we do have the option of crafting a policy which
> encourages and condones poorly-managed enterprise networks by
> allowing end users to receive PI allocations directly from ARIN.
> --Michael Dillon
I agree with you. Of course what I want to understand..through the
experience of others..is the 'necessity' for PI to anyone (first) and
smaller entities (as well). By exposing all the absolutes and relatives in
appropriate perspective, it makes determining IF and WHO gets PI
easier...not easy....easier. Consensus is only born from common
understanding, I think.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML