[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process
sethm at rollernet.us
Fri Jun 5 14:36:43 EDT 2009
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML