[arin-ppml] IPv6 and minimum allocations

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Mon Aug 3 16:59:49 EDT 2009

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM, <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
> V4 and V6 are different technically but the effects of both
> sets of policies bleed very much into the other. It's
> folly to establish a V4 policy that encourages a group
> of small concerns to get PI space and then not take into
> consideration that WE want them to use V6. Are you going to
> tell them they can have V4 but not V6 but by the way we want
> you to convert/implement V6?
>  If we really want to move V6 forward we need to begin tying
> the policies together.

Hi Larry,

Perhaps, but whether we want to tie continued IPv4 assignments to IPv6
deployment is a different question than whether /22 is a better
minimum size for IPv4 than /24. It merits a separate conversation that
doesn't hijack the IPv4 minimum size thread. Same for whether /56 is
better than /48 and whether the assignment criteria for IPv6 should
depend in any way on the applicant's qualification for IPv4.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list