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

[Martin Hannigan]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Hannigan" <martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs>
To: Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com>, arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4
block to facilitate IPv6 deployment
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:33:31 -0400

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Dedicated IPv4
> block to facilitate IPv6 deployment
> Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:38:59 +0000
> 
> > > > 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.)
> 
> The policy proposal itself inferred that < /24 was ok to
> allocate.
> 
> Expecting a set aside of the last /8 is unreasonable. 
> 


Please allow me to adjust this comment slightly. Expecting a
set aside from within the last /8 is unreasonable.

-M<