[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Dave Temkin]

It's a shame that that's the answer.

The problem:  "Adopt IPv6 as soon as possible!  We need as much content 
as possible on IPv6 to drive adoption!"

The answer:  "Wait 5 months and then maybe we'll make it possible for 
you, and the average enterprise, to deploy it... Or maybe not if people 
don't like the exact wording of the proposal"

I guess we've waited 9 years, what's another 5 months or years?

-Dave



cja at daydream.com wrote:
> I'd like to further encourage those of you who need this to 
> participate in the Dearborn meeting whether in person or remotely.  
>
> Thanks
> ----Cathy
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com 
> <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>
>     I believe that situation is exactly what proposal 84 is intended
>     to rectify.
>
>     Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer for you under current
>     policy.
>
>     I would urge you to review proposal 84, and, if you feel this
>     addresses your
>     needs, be vocal in your support for it to become policy.
>
>     Owen
>
>
>     On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
>         I'm going to attempt to keep this brief, but here goes:
>
>         Recently, I received a /48.  After beginning our rollout, I
>         quickly discovered that we'd need a /44 at the very least.
>          See, I have multiple networks that are not interconnected by
>         a common backbone, and so a single /48 would leave me with a
>         useless routing domain given that most people prefix filter at
>         le /48.
>
>         Currently, each OrgID is entitled to only one /48.  Under
>         IPv4, if you operate separate, disparate networks you're
>         allowed to request multiple blocks under the Multiple Discrete
>         Networks policy.  No such policy exists for IPv6, however it's
>         been proposed here:  https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six583
>
>         I'd love to hear suggestions on workarounds until such the
>         proposed policy would be voted on and implemented. PA
>         addressing is not a viable option.
>
>         If we expect IPv6 adoption to have a significant uptick we
>         need to take away silly barriers to addressing such as this
>         and make address assignments accessible for the common ASP or
>         Enterprise - and right now it's definitely not.
>
>
>         -Dave
>         _______________________________________________
>         PPML
>         You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>         the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>         <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>         experience any issues.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PPML
>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>
>