[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Stacy Hughes wrote:
> Hi Everyone, 
> Chuck precisely makes one of my points here.  
> When I voted against this concept last time around, I felt just like 
> Ted.  Like, you're not a real ISP or player if you don't have 200 
> customers.  

I never said that.  As I mentioned in the response to the NoX question,
there is already a micro allocation policy that applies to them.

> But there are real ISPs that are small that deserve the minimum 
> allocation of IPv6 just as much as the 200+ers.  
> If we want everyone participating in IPv6, we must make sure they can 
> get it - especially ISPs, large and small.

If they are real ISPs that are small then it is not that much of a 
burden for them to get their IPv6 from an upstream and reassigning
it to their customers.  If they are
multihomed then nothing is stopping them from advertising that block.
Granted, there will be a larger advertisement for the block their
smaller block is part of out there but that shouldn't matter.  It
certainly doesn't matter for IPv4 since before we got our IPv4 space
in 2004 we used non-portable IPv4 space in this fashion with no problems.

By contrast, the problem of table bloat in routers is very real.  You
are essentially asking thousands of orgs out there to put money into
tens of thousands of routers out there to replace them with new gear
that will hold and manage a fantastically gigantic IPv6 table, just to
make it a slight bit easier for small orgs to advertise a /32, who
have absolutely no use for a /32 and would be happy with a /48, and
who are getting the /32 because they are still scared to death about the
old renumbering bugaboo - which doesn't even exist with IPv6 anyway.

You speak of a disincentive to adopting IPv6.  Well let me say that for
us, right now the additional ram consumed in our routers by the small
IPv6 table is NOT a disincentive.

But if 5 years from now that table has balloned and is maxing our 
routers ram out, and I still don't have customers asking for IPv6,
then your going to put me into a position where I have the choice of
tossing a lot of money into buying new hardware for a numbering scheme
that none of my customers wants or is paying for, on the idea
that -someday- it will be important, or just abandoning
the scheme alltogether and going back to IPv4 and waiting until
eventually there's demand for IPv6.

Seems to me your ignoring the disincentive that gigantic routers with
enormous amounts of memory will cost.

Ted