[ppml] 2005-1 status
billd at cait.wustl.edu
Mon Jan 23 19:00:16 EST 2006
From: Scott Leibrand
One possible argument (which I'm not sure I completely subscribe to) is
that v6 at least has the possibility of multihoming without PI
space, using shim6. The way I see it, shim6 will initially be most
for the smallest sites, the ones that have no chance of getting PI
Scott, The only reason that the smallest sites will have NO possibility of
getting PI space is if a consensus number of supporters cannot be found to
support their cause. Why should they be denied and their larger
So with that in mind, I would argue that ARIN's IPv6 PI policy should
encourage small multihomed sites to use a non-PI multihoming model
while preserving the ability for large multihomed sites to get PI space
and multihome the traditional way.
Is that a consensus position? If not, which aspect of it do you
disagree with, and why?
Scott, I'd say that placing a special burden on small operations, and SHIM6
from my limited observations seems like a very 'special' burden, to allow
them to multihome whereas their larger counterparts can avoid the same
burden with PI...well THAT is what needs to be justified, seems to me.
If so, then we can and should proceed to defining who's
big enough to need PI space for sure (regardless of the success of
introducing TE into shim6), who's too small to warrant PI space
regardless, and what to do about drawing the line in the middle.
Scott, I'd say it is too early to decide the haves and havenots until we
understand full the absolute NEED to make the distinction.
I am in support of enabling v6 an opportunity to succeed, but not at any
cost. I'd like to know that it is an assignment policy problem exclusively
before we ascribe an assignment policy solution.
More information about the ARIN-PPML