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

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Aug 3 16:13:43 EDT 2009

In a message written on Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 12:51:34PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>    Does this in any way indicate that someone who receives a /24
>    direct assignment should not be eligible for a /56, or, if requested
>    a /48 from ARIN?

Your asking the wrong question.

Largely I think folks who multi-home should be able to get IPv4 and
IPv6 space from ARIN to do just that.  My opinion may change if
multi-homing becomes popular in particular user bases (e.g. residential
end users), but for now I'm fairly happy to give anyone who buys
BGP capable service from two providers space.

With IPv4, there's not a lot more we can do, due to the lack of
available free address space, and the impending pressure on free
address space.

With IPv6, there's a lot we can do.  There are a number of proposed
sparce allocation models, for example, that would allow companies
to grow their allocations over time.  Staff is already doing some
sparce allocation in IPv6, but it's not clear to me they are using
the optimal procedure.

We need to stop looking at IPv6 as something you get as an add-on
after IPv4, and start to think about it as a first-rate protocol
that someone may want without IPv4, and that needs to be managed
intelligently on its own.  That's the real issue lurking in the
shadows here.

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090803/5428464a/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list