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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Wed Jan 24 07:19:55 EST 2007

Hi Michael,

I would agree with your point about the wording if there is not an
alternative space for those type of address space needs.

I think we should use ULA or ULA-central in those cases, and that will mean
no need to modify this text (or similar one in other policies, in all the
RIRs regions).

I think the community should make an effort for getting the RIRs involved in
agreeing to advance ULA-central in a convenient way for this usage. I tried
already, but got no answer up to now :-(


> De: <michael.dillon at bt.com>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:25:16 -0000
> Para: <ppml at arin.net>
> Conversación: [ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested
> changes-InputRequested
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested
> changes-InputRequested
>> - New organizations who do not want to use IPv4 at all and
>> start off using IPv6 addresses only, need a policy that gives
>> them permission to do so.
> Yes!
>> 'To qualify for an initial allocation of IPV6 address space,
>> an organization must':
>> d. be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region OR be an
>> organization which can justify intent to announce the
>> requested IPv6 address space within one year and have/obtain
>> and AS Number.
> I am concerned that this type of wording, which is typical of
> the existing policy as well, places too much emphasis on the use
> of IPv6 addresses on the Internet. IPv6 addresses are not intended
> for use on the Internet! They are intended for use on Internet
> Protocol (IP) networks. This subtle yet important distinction is
> embedded in RFC 2050, section 3(a) and is consistent with RFC
> 1918, section 2, category 3.
> Given the huge address space associated with IPv6 addresses, it
> is likely that many non-Internet applications will want to use
> Internet Protocol version 6. Since these applications will not
> be directly connected to the public Internet and will not make
> BGP announcements to the public Internet for normal operational
> purposes, it seems to me that the example language above is
> overly restrictive.
> There are two ways that could fix this. One is to recognize a
> separate category of application for IP version 6 networks that
> are not interconnected with the Internet. Then the language in
> section d. above would be matched by another section which
> explicitly does not require such BGP announcements. The other
> way to fix it is to avoid such restrictive language entirely.
> If so-called ISP allocations are for networks which intend to
> experience steady growth, year-on-year, then we can say that
> explicitly rather than restricting it only to organizations whose
> business model is that of an ISP. In fact, the business model which
> defines an ISP is considerably less clear in this day and age
> than it was 10 years ago.
> Some though experiments that might be useful:
> 1. According to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahsfaq.html
> there are about 120 million housing units in the USA, presumably
> every one with its own power meter. If you wanted to use IP over
> powerlines to manage these, then IPv4 doesn't have enough address
> space but IPv6 can easily handle it.
> 2. Supply-chain networks (extranets) are becoming more and more common.
> This means that enterprises interconnect their networks using IP
> seperate from their connections to the public Internet. As a result
> a single enterprise may need multiple assignments of globally unique
> IP addresses to accomodate connection to multiple internets.
> 3. Cellphones. The traditional telephone model is nearing the end of
> its life as cellphones become multi-purpose personal devices. In my
> part of the world it seems like a Nokia mobile phone is the most popular
> MP3 player. Apple has recently announced a cellphone with a
> non-traditional
> interface. Sometime soon there will be demand for a personal network
> address
> that doesn't change throughout a person's lifetime. IPv6 seems
> ready-made
> to handle this role since there is a surplus of IPv6 addresses.
> 4. Define your own non-ISP non public Internet scenario.
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> 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 !

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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list