[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Kris Foster]

+1

On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:48 PM, 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.