[ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

> > 2) We need to work within the constraints of the existing BGP
> >    protocol for the foreseeable future.
> 
> thanks for that.
> 
> > 3) As long as IPv4 is run in parallel, the number of subnets will
> >    be the same because it would be too hard to explain to ops how it
> >    works otherwise.
> 
> this seems to assume that the v6 net is essentially congruent with
> the v4 network.  perhaps this assumption is worthy of exploration.
> 
> can we focus on the engineering discussion?

	er... this is a public policy list...
	not quite sure where/how engineering plays a role. :)

	anyway, lets peek at the two points above.  presuming existing BGP,
	(which you express gratitude for) then one might rightly presume that
	unless any given ISP is going to replicate the CAPX to buy independent
	gear for building a v6 net that ignores any synergy w/ their v4 net
	and their various peering buddies seems to be a stretch.  e.g. the
	"edge" of bills bait & sushi will be roughly congruent for the v4 and 
	v6 nets due to cost of gear.  or put another way, dual-stack is the
	presumed wave'o'the future.  (can you even get a cisco box to NOT
	run v4?... last time i built one, it was impossible to run v6 only...
	needed v4 for SNMP & assorted other cruft)  and if dual-stack is
	mandatory to run, then there will be v4/v6 net overlap.

	so not so much engineering as a pragmatic operational tactic.
	but your experiences may differ from mine.  can you build a network
	that is v6 only from either cisco or juniper kit?  if not, then
	i posit that #3, as far as "As long as IPv4 is run in parallel, the 
	number of subnets will be the same.." is a reasonable presumption.

--bill

> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml