[arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104

[Scott Leibrand]

Terry,

In order for that to work, some network must announce the aggregate /32, 
and provide Internet service to all the smaller entities being numbered 
out of it.  That is essentially what an ISP/LIR does.  If you'd like to 
start such an ISP, you could easily qualify for an IPv6 /32 under 
existing policy for LIRs.

-Scott

On 12/23/2009 1:21 PM, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> All
>
> Maybe to open an old topic into the discussion again...
>
> Is there a good reason that ARIN doesn't pick 1 to 5 hubs in a province/state and assign a /32 or larger to them depending on their Internet population and then make sub-allocations from these region prefixes to smaller entities in that region?
>
> Huge amounts of the potential global routing tables could then be aggregated regionally with still gaining the ability allow small local sub-allocations for small entities without much impact to the global routing.  Then from the regional aggregations could be broken up locally by ISP.
>
> And I'm fine with the idea that if the entity moves out of the regional then they do have to re-address or if they open branches in other regions, those branches get regional addressing based on their location.
>
> I probably missed something basic here and I know this has a problem with the preservation Internet "anonymity" but I think that concept actually died a long time ago; most of the web sites I visit anymore seem to even which city (it's pretty small) I live in already.
>
> Take care
> Terry
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 1:04 PM
>> To: ARIN PPML
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Abandonment of 103/104
>>
>> In a message written on Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:08:38PM -0500, William
>> Herrin wrote:
>>      
>>> You've couched it better than Owen but you've basically said the same
>>> thing: the community won't want this, so why bother bringing it to the
>>> point where you ask them? The problem with that theory is two-fold:
>>>        
>> You are putting words into my mouth.  The community may well want
>> this in the future, I have no reason to believe they will or they
>> won't.
>>
>>      
>>> In the end you could be right. It could well go down in flames during
>>> the consensus call at the meeting. But even that serves a valuable
>>> purpose.
>>>        
>> There is still time for it to be on the agenda at the next meeting.
>> Work the idea in the mailing list.  Refine it.  Resubmit.  The AC
>> saying "not ready yet" doesn't remotely imply the AC saying "never".
>> If we ever have to say never I bet we will do that quite clearly.
>> :)
>>
>> --
>>         Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>>          PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>