[arin-ppml] The non-deployment of IPv6

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Tue Dec 8 16:51:24 EST 2009

Davis, Terry L wrote:
> - We need to get IPv6 addresses in the hands of the developers; 
> especially the small greenfields. Perhaps our past address allocation 
> policies just might have something to do with the problem. In the mid 
> 80’s to early 90’s, an email request with almost zero justification 
> would get 50 or 100 class Cs or a class B without regards to the size 
> of the entity or what industry it was part of. Are we still too 
> restrictive for the greenfields and new technology developers?
I would say yes. I have an experimental wireless backbone network 
spanning a fair bit of the Monterey Bay area. It runs IPv4 using 
pre-ARIN PI space I don't need to pay for, as I was an "early adopter" 
of IPv4. Renumbering of sites that are hours away at the tops of 
mountaintops with no out-of-band access isn't pleasant, so I like having 
the PI space.

There's no equivalent way to get routeable IPv6 space for early adopters 
of IPv6, which seems crazy as there's so much more of it.

Fortunately there's no need for IPv6 experimenters the way there was a 
need with IPv4, as there's a big established ISP industry rolling it out 
and they'll handle all of that this time around. Which probably explains 
why my transit provider(s) don't offer it yet.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list