[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen at sprunk.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:20 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community 
> Networks IPv6 Assignment
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > I had thought that one of the big advantages of IPv6 is 
> that it was designed to be simple to renumber.  
> >
> > Thus I am not sure why having "a stable and globally unique 
> address assignment" has anything to do with having "a stable 
> internal address structure" under IPv6.  I can understand why 
> a community network would need the second thing, but I don't 
> see why they can't have this under a globally unique address 
> assignment that's made by a LIR instead of by ARIN.
> >
> > The community network's internal address structure would 
> NOT change when their connections to outside networks come 
> and go - under IPv6.
> >   
> 
> This reasoning was officially rejected with the adoption of 2005-1.  
> Please re-read the archives on that debate so that we don't 
> have to rehash all those same tired, flawed arguments again.
> 

No, that reasoning was rejected for networks LARGER than a /48

That is why the minimum size exists.

Or are you arguing that community networks of 100 users would
have such a complex internal network that they couldn't renumber?

Just how small a network do you have to have for you to keep
making this argument?  Or would you make the same arguments
about how it's impossible to renumbering for a single host
(that wasn't already covered under the micro allocations policy
such as used for a root nameserver, etc.)

Ted