[ppml] Policy without consensus?

Davis, Terry L terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Tue Jan 24 13:18:16 EST 2006


I agree with your position!  Unless we find a reasonable way to allocate
IP-v6 address space, IP-v6 is going nowhere here in the US!

No major corporation CIO is likely to sign off on developing a major
network infrastructure that will involve ultimately million of dollars
and then be forced to rely on a single ISP to provide all their
addresses and thus accept essentially a perpetual service contract with
that provider.  (Their view but I tend to agree...)  I'm not even sure
that a single ISP provider would pass a Sarbannes-Oxley audit anymore
given the focus on "business continuity".

Take care
Terry L Davis
Boeing Technical Fellow

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding at burtongroup.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:50 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks; Lea Roberts
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy without consensus?

We may have to change routing paradigms at some point. When we approach
scaling limit, it can be considered and examined. We are busy worrying
being able to route the entire IPv6 space. The funny thing is, unless
is a reasonable allocation policy, IPv6 will end up on the dust heap of

Some folks assume that enterprises are willing to swallow a lack of PI
and multihoming. Wrong - they are not and will not now or in the future.
They buy carrier services - and they will not buy IPv6 services without
space and true multihoming.

If we can't allocate IPv6 space to enterprises, then its time to scrap
and start again. There is really no middle case in the real world.

- Daniel Golding

On 1/23/06 9:24 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> I would care more, at present at least, that the IPv6 routing table
> actually get USED. At present, it is, what, 1% of the total ?
> One thing we learned in multicast is not to worry about problems
> by success until you actually have something like success.
> Regards
> Marshall
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:
>> 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?  and you also don't worry about carrying over the
>> "IPv4
>> early adopter bonus" into the brave new IPv6 world?  assuming of
>> course
>> that the policy might have to be more restrictive later?
>> just curious,    /Lea
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>       On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
>>>>> Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I
>>>>> supported it because
>>>>> it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People
>>>>> who voted for it
>>>>> were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of
>>>>> improving it later.
>>> Yup, that's certainly true of me, and of everyone else I know who
>>> voted
>>> for it.  It wasn't acceptable as voted, but there was nothing else
>>> on the
>>> table, and nothing else we could vote for.  Yes, that's a really
>>> major
>>> problem.
>>>> That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
>>>> only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
>>>> only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
>>>> we're a couple of years from an emergency.
>>> I think we're a couple of years into an emergency.
>>>                                 -Bill
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML mailing list
>>> PPML at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list