[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Mar 24 15:47:09 EDT 2009
> -----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.)
More information about the ARIN-PPML