[ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy

David Kessens david.kessens at nokia.com
Mon Mar 13 21:55:48 EST 2006

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:27:17AM +0000, ppml-bounces at arin.net wrote:
> 	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.

It would be nice if we could go back to a discussion about the real
issues on the ground as opposed to presumptions.

Yes, there are people who build an exact mirror of their v4 network.
There are other operators who don't.

It really doessn't matter whether you were using v4 or not. 

What matters is that you have serious plan to deploy v6 and a real
need for ipv6 addresses (eg. you don't need /32 if you are only
deploying a few machines in a lab even if you have a huge v4 network).

Another problem is the inequality in the proposals that I have seen so
far. We really cannot afford to have policies in place that allow a
small ISP in the midwest to get a /32 while a company like Boeing or
Caterpillar gets treated like an 'End-User'. We have been discussing
potential policies for end-users now for eternity but we have not
shown any ability to come to a conclusion that is fair and equitable for
a very large cross-section of the organizations that have shown a real
interest in deploying ipv6.

What we need is to fix is the 'global ipv6 allocation policy' and make
it work for the people who actually do need ipv6 addresses. All these
seperate proposals for certain special interest groups is not going to
get that fixed and only creates new categories of haves and have-nots.

David Kessens

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list