[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com
Fri Aug 31 11:30:43 EDT 2007
If I understand this proposal correctly, I cannot support it as written.
"To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or
allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or
demonstrate efficient utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment or
allocation covered by a current ARIN RSA."
As I understand this proposal, it is an attempt to get legacy v4 holders
to come in under the ARIN umbrella and get started on v6. I could not
find an exact definition of efficient utilization" but I think many
(most?) of the legacy people not under an RSA might not qualify under
that criteria. I expect that most of the legacy holders who have not
had to sign an RSA with ARIN for additional space are
companies/businesses that haven't had to grow to the point where they
would meet the "efficient utilization" criteria. At the time these v4s
were issued, we had 3 choices. a Class A (/8), Class B(/16) or Class
C(/24). Except for the smallest of us home office types, most people
estimated optimistically and got a bigger space than they needed.
(Remember at that time, the internet was "infinite".) Those who morphed
to ISPs and needed more later had to come under an RSA as they grew.
The rest were relatively static and most probably didn't grow to
"efficiently" fill the address space they were given. Since most of the
ones who grew eventually came under an RSA, the group this policy
proposal is aimed at would not be covered by it without having to trade
in their existing v4 space or in the case of Class C/24s couldn't keep
their /24. There certainly seems to be no incentive for them to come in
from the cold and many reasons not to As a result, I don't see where
this proposal as written will accomplish its stated goal and thus should
not be adopted.
Perhaps if it were worded "are actively using the legacy space", that
would encourage more to join. I'm not sure what would be done with the
/8s if they were using the equivalent of a /16 or less but if that were
case, they might be able to give back some of the /8 without requiring
As an example, I have a /24 and have 15-30 devices on my network. This
might grow in the future but probably not to 128 Under existing and
this proposed policy, I don't believe I would qualify for PI v6 space
and thus see no reason to be in favor of it. (and frankly not much
reason to continue to read through the sometimes prolific traffic on the
group :-) ). I expect many of the mis-sent unsubscribe messages that
have shown up were sent by those in a similar situation.
7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/
More information about the ARIN-PPML