[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

[Davis, Terry L]

Paul

Agree absolutely!

I'm working with a couple different industry-wide consortiums on IPv6 planning and they may fit one of your models. 

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 1:28 PM
> To: Paul Vixie
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
> 
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:29:14PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) writes:
> >
> > > If I remember correctly, creating a swamp only serves to constantly
> > > remind those who are stuck with it afterward that swamp creation was /
> is
> > > a very bad idea. Besides, if you have an idea of where/how one might
> > > build a more "solid foundation", persuading us now, up front might be
> a
> > > more effective way of bringing people around than intentionally
> degrading
> > > the only "ground" that's currently apparent.
> >
> > there are more than two visions (pure hierarchy and pure swamp).  for
> example:
> >
> > neighborhood or metro-area mesh networking where local cheap highspeed
> ISO-L2
> > is used to glue geographies together in a way that no telco or backbone
> net
> > is involved... would make better use of available glass and silicon than
> the
> > pure hierarchical model IETF CIDR gave us.  this sounds like a bad idea
> since
> > it would either mean a global swamp (everybody's /56 in the core) or
> monopoly
> > status for incumbants (everybody's /56 came from the same /32) or mass
> route
> > pollution (everybody's /56 becomes a metro-area cutout).
> >
> > but what if multihoming was automatic and universal and robust?  could a
> metro
> > or neighborhood get unrouteable / non-global IPv6 space for an ISO-L2
> overlay
> > made up of a hairball of private wireless, private wire, private fiber,
> and
> > automatically use those addresses when talking to reachable endpoints?
> (this
> > would require something better than RIPv2, so don't try it at home
> today!)
> >
> > or what if a metropolitan connectivity authority wanted to get an IPv6
> block
> > for all of its FTTH and mobile/wireless endpoints, and rather than
> buying
> > transit for this block, they set up a market of cooperating backbone
> operators
> > and consumers, doing IP-in-IP to deliver global reachability?  (this is
> like
> > what some 802 networks do today but wide area bridging does not scale
> well.)
> >
> > i'm not proposing either of these, not exactly.  i'm saying there ought
> to
> > be room in the RIR allocation policy framework for addressing models
> that
> > are not dreamt of by those who love swamps and those who fear swamps.
> > --
> > Paul Vixie
> > KI6YSY
> 
> 
> 	indeed there should be.
> 
> --bill
> _______________________________________________
> 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.