[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: A Modest Proposal for an AlternateIPv6 Allocation Process

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > it is disturbing to see the distinction between ISP and non-ISP 
> > allocations being blurred like this.

> Blurred nothing. I kicked the it to curb. This proposal makes 
> no distinction whatsoever between ISPs and anyone else. And 
> eliminating preferential treatment based on a frequently 
> artificial distinction doesn't disturb me at all.

Nevertheless, the distinction between network operators, 
and end-sites is fundamental to the way IP networks
function. Nobody has yet come up with a way to handle
a global network without having hierarchy in the network
and that means that the non-end-sites, must be treated
differently.

> > Not to mention that the complexity raises new barriers to 
> getting IPv6 
> > addresses which is not the way we should be heading.
> 
> What complexity? You're multihomed? You qualify. Done.

I'm not multihomed at all. I have DSL connectivity at home
and certainly do not qualify for an IPv6 allocation from any
RIR.

And your comment is way out of line. I'm not arguing that this
is too complex for the big ISPs like my employer, but I'm arguing
that it is too complex for the small guys who are up to their
ass in alligators just dealing with technical and business
issues. They don't need the additional bureaucracy that you 
propose. Today, these small ISPs go to ARIN, get their /32
and that is the end of it until 10 years from now when a
few of them have grown bigger than their wildest dreams.

Read up on the network effect. Large ISPs like my employer are
absolutely dependent on small ISPs because without the small
guys, there would be far less content and eyeballs on the
net. 

Your policy is a non-starter because it is tainted with the
dumb idea of /48 slowstart for ISPs, and because it tries to
do too many radical things. 

--Michael Dillon