[arin-ppml] IPv6 and minimum allocations

[William Herrin]

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.

Regards,
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