[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Scott Leibrand]

Dave,

This is the kind of thing that we all should have been able to see would 
be a problem at some point.  I personally will take some responsibility 
for not proposing it before the San Antonio meeting, as we saw the need 
for it when we started detailed planning for IPv6 deployment.   And I'm 
sure I'm not the only one, but for whatever reason, no one thought this 
was a serious drawback until the last few months.

One lesson from this is that we all need to be planning ahead, and 
thinking about what kind of issues might arise in the future as we 
deploy IPv6.  There's no reason something like this should sneak up on 
us, so I would encourage everyone to think about what policy might be 
needed in the near future.

-Scott

Dave Temkin wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.