[ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes-InputRequested

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I guess Leslie can tell us how many request have been rejected on the basis
of the lack of a plan for 200 /48, however, as said in my previous message,
it seems to me that many of those "plans" are just made up to get the
prefix.

If we have a single policy with helps to lie, are we accepting the same way
the people to lie in all the other policies ?

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Kevin Loch <kloch at kl.net>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:24:04 -0500
> Para: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested
> changes-InputRequested
> 
> Andrew Dul wrote:
> 
>> I certainly think it is very possible to have a business and only a few
>> customers and be a profitable.  That isn't the question we should be
>> considering in defining the policy.
>> 
>> We also need to be considering how these changes will impact the routing
>> infrastructure.  Like it or not the policies we set have a very real impact
>> of the routing infrastructure.  While ARIN doesn't set routing policy it
>> can heavily influence how routing economics (or lack thereof) effect the
>> network architecture and infrastructure.
>> 
>> How about this case...
>> 
>> I have a home business and want to defray the costs of my internet service
>> so I want to assign a /48 to my neighbors who will receive service via
>> wireless.  I'm now an LIR and eligible for a /32.
>> 
>> That doesn't seem like the type of organization who is an LIR/ISP as was
>> envisioned by others when defining the IPv6 routing infrastructure.
> 
> The folks that originally defined the IPv6 address policy
> only allowed for a handfull of super-isp's that would each get a /16.
> That was impractical (to put it mildly) in the conservative direction.
> 
> The other extreme is that anyone who would be assign space
> to others would get a LIR minimum of /32.  That of course is not
> practical with the current routing system either.
> 
> While the current threshold of 200 over 5 years seems like just a wild
> guess it doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from actually deploying
> IPv6 if they want to.
> 
> I don't see any reason to change the ISP requirements part of the
> policy right now.
> 
> - Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.