[ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

[Jason Schiller]

Rob,

I'm not sure that you are missing anything (or if you are maybe I am
missing it too)...  A few people have suggested that they would be
more likely to favor this proposal if there was a sunset clause.  So I
guess I just wanted to foat the idea, and see if this changed anyone's
opinion of the policy.  

So far it seems that people either don't care about the sunset (for the
reasons you state), or are specifically against it.

The reason we are even discussing this is that some people think this
problem should be solved in the protocol.  Unforunately that will take a
some time.  In the mean time we can solve it now with an addressing
policy.  I guess the basic though is maybe this addressing policy should
only be a stop gap measure untill it can be solved in the protocol and
fully implemented in the hardware.  That leads to the question, should we
sunset this policy?  

Rob, thank you for your thoughts on this question. 


___Jason


==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:

> Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:37:14 -0400
> From: Robert E. Seastrom <ppml at rs.seastrom.com>
> To: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller at mci.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
> 
> 
> Jason Schiller <schiller at uu.net> writes:
> 
> > Would people be more infavor of 2006-2 if it has a sundown clause that
> > would require an orgization to return the internal microallocation once
> > there is a fully deployed suitable protocol alternative that alleviates
> > the need for an internal microallocation?
> >
> > Or should the ARIN membership simply revoke this portion through the
> > public policy mechinism when that time comes? 
> 
> I don't think we would have any better luck getting back internal
> microallocations than we would getting back ostensibly publicly
> routable microallocations.  Given the vastness of IPv6 space and the
> fact that we're not taking up a slot in the global routing table, I'm
> not sure why we would bother anyway.
> 
> The thing about which I wonder more though is why a codified sunset
> for the allocation, which basically forces a migration upon the
> adopters at such time as ARIN decides that you can stick a fork in the
> technology because it's baked, would make the policy proposal more
> (instead of radically less) palatable?  Am I missing something here?
> 
>                                         ---Rob
>