[arin-ppml] Summary: lowering the ARIN minimum allocation

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Mon Aug 3 14:49:31 EDT 2009

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:40:33PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:28:54PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> > A hundred messages later, here's a summary of the discussion on
> > lowering the ARIN minimum allocation for Multihomed organizations:
> I notice something missing.  IPv6.
> I say this because it would appear we have ~2 years of IPv4 left.
> Given a policy cycle to get something implemented, it would appear
> we might be talking about policy changes that matter for ~18 months.
> That's not to say we shouldn't do it, but that we may need to direct
> some focus elsewhere.
> I would prefer a new policy look directly at multi-homing end-users
> in IPv6, and if there are smart things we can be doing there.  Since
> the space is larger, we have many more opportunities to do things
> like right-sizing the first allocation, and doing spare allocation
> in ways that allocations can grow without turning into multiple
> route announcements.  Work in this area is likely to pay dividends
> for 10's of years, not a year and a half.
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

	you raise a couple of interesting ideas.

	a) that once the last "greenfield" IPv4 prefix is handed out,
	   that any/all policy for IPv4 is dead.

	b) there are fundamental differences in how one constructs
	   policy for the different address families.

	and I am not sure I agree with either lema.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list