[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment

cja@daydream.com packetgrrl at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 19:15:32 EDT 2008


I think the little non-contiguous blocks should be used for this. I brought
it up at the meeting and I was shot down by folks who felt that it needed to
be contiguous so that it can be filtered appropriately.  It must not be
passe for some folks :-)


On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:

> > > I would suggest that this policy could be improved by instead focusing
> > > it's resource requirement on utilizing those fragments.
> > >
> > > -M<
> >
> > Marty, I agree with you but the common argument against using those small
> > non-contiguous blocks is that they won't be from a recognizable range
> that
> > can be used in filters.
> >
> > ----CJ
> last time i asked routing people about it, prefix length filters were
> passe.
> but even if not, is routeability a reasonable consideration for arin
> policy?
> (if arin starts allocating these, it'd just end up killing whatever prefix
> length filters still exist, if any.)
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you
> experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080607/d8ba2948/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list