[ppml] Legacy /24s
Keith W. Hare
Keith at jcc.com
Sun Sep 2 15:48:59 EDT 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of William Herrin
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 12:42 AM
> To: Keith W. Hare
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Legacy /24s
> On 9/1/07, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com> wrote:
> > requirement that you have to comply with a security and security
> > auditing specification, such as the payment card industry (PCI)
> > specification. Part of the cost would be renumbering, part
> would be
> > revising the rules in the firewalls, intrusion detection
> system, etc.
> > A big part would be in re-auditing the information security
> That's an interesting argument. Having been through the PCI
> auditing process I don't buy that it increases the
> renumbering cost enough to merit requiring everybody else to
> pay $17k per year but its an interesting argument.
I do not have anywhere close to enough knowledge about now all of this
works to evaluate your $17k per year number.
What I'm claiming is that the cost implementing IPv6 is significantly
higher than the cost of the hardware, and it is the difficult to
quantify costs, such as tying one's IP addresses to a single ISP, that
are going to impede IPv6 adoption.
You claim that letting too many organizations have Provider Independent
address space adds cost to everyone.
I claim that without PI space, there are a lot of small to medium size
business that are going to be more reluctant to adopt IPv6.
We could both be correct, in which case the ARIN policy question is what
set of policies promote IPv6 sufficiently without overwhelming the
Keith W. Hare JCC Consulting, Inc.
keith at jcc.com 600 Newark Road
Phone: 740-587-0157 P.O. Box 381
Fax: 740-587-0163 Granville, Ohio 43023
More information about the ARIN-PPML