[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process

[Seth Mattinen]

Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> This proposal states the following regarding sparse allocation:
> 
>> Unproven: with sparse allocation, we can allow organizations to expand
>> by just changing their subnet mask so that they don't have to announce
>> additional routes into the DFZ. This claim is questionable. With
>> sparse allocation, we either consume much larger blocks that what we
>> assign (so why not just assign the larger block?) or else we don't
>> consume them in which case the org either has to renumber to expand or
>> he has to announce a second route. Worse, because routes of various
>> sizes are all scattered inside the same address pool, its impractical
>> to detect or filter out the traffic engineering routes.
> 
> To start with, the reason users want sparse allocation is so that they
> do not have to undertake a (presumably) large renumbering exercise.  Any
> policy that requires additional renumber will encourage use of ULAs tied
> to NAT.  It is already difficult to argue against those who want to
> insulate themselves from renumbering events with ULAs.  This policy
> would be the nail in the coffin for those of us who like globally unique
> and routed addresses.
> 
> And so the question: should ARIN be encouraging use of ULAs *instead* of
> globally routable address space?
> 

I'd always been told one of the bonuses of IPv6 is that everyone can get
globally routable address space. There might be some backlash if policy
tries to change that.

~Seth