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

Kevin Loch kloch at kl.net
Sat Jan 27 02:24:04 EST 2007

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list