[arin-ppml] Large hole in IPv6 assignment logic

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 08:21:43AM -0700, Dave Temkin wrote:
> "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for making 
> at least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations within 5 
> years.", however when pressed as to how 10310 or 15169 meet that 
> requirement (specifically 200 end-site assignments to other 
> organizations), I got no answer.  The reality of it is that neither fit 
> that description - Yahoo and Google provide transit services to 
> themselves only, and while they may have 200 end sites, they are 
> definitely *not* other organizations.  I do not understand why ARIN 
> management would have made exceptions for these two companies (and 
> probably many others).

I can't speak to the two specific cases, but I note the policy you
reference is an /or/.

I believe "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region" is met if
you have IPv4 Assignments (you pay ISP fees, you enter SWIPs, you
got your space as assignments).  It's entirely possible there are
folks who qualify under the first half of the clause that will never
have 200 sites.

As others have noted, there is active policy work in many directions to
address this problem.  Also, filtering is still being developed on the
IPv6 Internet, while there are folks who strict filter on /48's, there
are also folks who do not.  It may be worth participating in forums like
NANOG and making the argument that the filter should be (as an example)
a /50, allowing for a limited amount of deaggregation for end sites.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090609/1cc4f34b/attachment.sig>