[ppml] IPv6 PI to legacy IPv4 holders
stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Oct 18 18:10:31 EDT 2007
Thus spake <briand at ca.afilias.info>
> 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.
The problem with that is that it's trivial to get an ASN; effectively
setting the bar for PI space to "anyone who wants it". While one can debate
how low the bar should be (and such debate comes up every few months), I
cannot support removing the bar entirely.
> The rationale is, if an organization has an ASN, they are actively
> involved in multihoming, which is the one situation under which
> current PA assignment would not meet the needs of the organization.
In v4, we require a multihomed end user to justify at least a /22 to get a
direct assignment. That bar is inherited for v6 today.
There was a proposal in prior cycles to reduce that bar to a /24; it was
defeated for a variety of reasons, most recently due to the perceived
potential for abuse by spammers. While I find that unfortunate, I believe
that is the fair and correct way to open things up so that those legacy
holders with a /24 (who could justify such again today) could get PIv6
I am strongly opposed to giving PIv6 space to Legacy Class C holders who
couldn't justify a /24 today simply because they happened to get a block
back in the days when nobody was paying attention. I'm definitely opposed
to giving PIv6 space to those folks and _not_ giving PIv6 space to folks who
potentially have equal or better utilization today.
I do thank many Legacy folks for their contribution 15+ years ago, but I've
seen too many folks who swiped (not SWIP'd) a Class C from a past employer
and are using it for their two-PC home network today to believe that simply
being a legacy holder means that one made a meaningful contribution to the
birth of the Internet that deserves any sort of special treatment, e.g. that
it alone justifies PIv6 space and thus a slot in the v6 DFZ. Extending that
proposal to non-Legacy ASN holders (including folks who get an ASN tomorrow
solely to dodge the current requirements) is unconscionable, IMHO.
> If ARIN is interested in encouraging IPv6 adoption, extending IPv6 PI
> allocations to all organizations that have an actively used ASN, is the
> most logical way to pursue that interest.
According to the BoT, ARIN is not in the business of "encouraging"
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
More information about the ARIN-PPML