[ppml] IPv6 PI to legacy IPv4 holders

[briand at ca.afilias.info]

> Brian,
>
> Its possible (and in some cases preferred) for small orgs to use a
> private ASN and let the the service provider strip it before
> propagating the announcement. I forget the exact numbers but its in
> the 64000/65000 range. This is one of the sources of "inconsistent
> ASes" in the routing table.
>
> Requiring the assignment of an ASN would burn ASNs unnecessarily in this
> case.

I think you are concerned about *requiring* ASNs; my proposal addresses
on the additional *ability* to get PI IPv6 for orgs that don't qualify under
other criteria.

Under the conditions you describe, do those orgs not qualify either under
existing policy, or based on the proposed "legacy + efficient utilization"
policy?

If they do, then I don't think it's an issue.

Besides, ASNs don't, by themselves, use router slots, so I don't think
ASN burn rate is as big an issue. We know we will need to go to 4-byte
ASNs soon, regardless of new ways of encouraging ASN requests, and once
4-byte ASNs are being used, the ASN burn rate is also not an issue...

Brian

> Regards,
> Biill Herrin
>
>
>
> On 10/18/07, briand at ca.afilias.info <briand at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>> I propose adding one additional condition under which an organization
>> would be eligible for receiving an IPv6 PI allocation from ARIN:
>>
>> The organization currently has been assigned an ASN and is actively
>> using it.
>
> --
> William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>