[ppml] Policy without consensus?

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Jan 24 05:05:34 EST 2006

> so do you gentlemen believe that we should allow unlimited allocation of
> IPv6 PI space to whomever wants to multihome and just consider the
> possible routing table scaling problems to be something that will be
> dealt with later? 

Unless someone presents QUANTITATIVE information demonstrating
a real route scaling problem then I do not believe that there
is such a problem.

Let us not forget that IPv6 route table scaling is 
NOT THE SAME AS IPV4 route table scaling. It is a completely
different problem. For one thing, very few ASes will need more
than a single IPv6 allocation. For another thing, there is
a way out for organizations that feel pain. They can use IPv4
instead. This is an option that did not exist in the IPv4

We don't HAVE TO make policy in a vacuum. If it is important
to have hard facts before us then we can simply refuse to
make new policy until someone does the research and presents
the facts.

The IPv4 Internet was a success precisely because three
groups of people worked closely together supporting each
other. Vendors, network operators and RESEARCHERS each
applied their strengths to the problems of scaling the 
IPv4 Internet. We need the same kind of support in the IPv6
Internet, in particular the support from researchers.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list