[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction
Fred.Wettling at Bechtel.com
Mon Oct 29 11:35:09 EDT 2007
I oppose this proposal. ARIN Policy 6.5.4. Assignments from LIRs/ISPs
is fine as-is. In addition to Tony Hain's comments, there are some
additional practical issues based on the experience of deploying IPv6 on
a large number of sites.
1. Stateless auto-configuration works and is deployed in many commercial
products today. It's based on RFC 2374 - "An IPv6 Aggregatable Global
Unicast Address Format" with the last 64 bits designated as the
interface ID. A policy that opposes the fundamental addressing
structure of an established protocol should be avoided.
2. We should assume that EUI-64 will be the standard as explicitly
defined by IEEE.
http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html A policy
that opposes the fundamental addressing structure of an established
standard should be avoided.
3. Address allocation should not be dependent on the address assignment
method used by an organization. These will change over time.
4. IPv6 addressing plans for enterprises with multiple sites will often
contain patterns that are applied across multiple sites... regardless of
size. For example, MIPv6, HMIPv6 Multicast, DMZ, voice, video, etc.
Operational efficiencies are possible if the same patterns can be
applied to each site of an enterprise.
5. LIR allocations, aggregations, and management will be easier with
fewer blocks per customer, not more.
BTW, I also disagree with Bill Herrin's comments that stateless
auto-configuration will "go down in flames". See RFC 3041 "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6"
More information about the ARIN-PPML