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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

David Farmer wrote:
> On 29 May 2009 Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
>>> Not every startup company or educational network is going to have
>>> 200 customers, not necessarily even after several years.  Even NoX,
>>> the Boston/New England area Internet2 PoP, only has ~25
>>> participants.  Should they not be allowed to get a /32?
>>>
>> Their literature seems to indicate they are nothing more than a
>> kid of club and have no network infrastructure at all, so if that is
>> the case then quite obviously they should not get a /32
>>
>> However if they are acting as an exchange point for those participants
>> then they should be obtaining IPv6 under the 6.10.1 section for micro
>> allocations.
> 
> Can we agree not to cast stones at each other's "clubs".
> 

Since when did the term club become a dirty word?  I can't help that
their website has less info about what they ARE than Obama's economic
plan has about fixing regulation on banks.

> GigaPOPs are the current club house for the people that 
> created the Internet in the first place, long before Al Gore or 
> most of the people on this list ever heard of the Internet.
> 

OK then they have been in business a while and therefore are
subject to the "preexisting ISP" clause and thus have nothing
whatsover to do with this discussion.

> And while their may only be a small number of "participants" 
> many times those participants represent 10,000 to 100,000 
> desktop connections.  Further the 20+ Internet2 GigaPOPs 
> quietly purchase over 75G committed bandwidth from a 
> number of Internet transport providers.  Besides the 
> community operating two separate national foot print 
> backbones with over 200G of capacity nationally and regionally
> 

Why is a sales pitch necessary?

What are they?

An existing ISP - good, served by current policy

An exchange point - good, served by existing IPv6 microallocation policy

NEXT!!!!

> Let's try not to call out specific organizations, be they 
> providers, end users, or bizarre combinations of the two.
> 

OK we can then have a battle of straw men!  Great, let me sit back
and try to create a really good straw man that has a Hollywood-ready
movie story - how about the struggling small ISP who is trying to
scrape together the money to keep the orphanage of sick orphans
open and is being denied IPv6 by those big bad ogre telephone company
ISP's who want to keep all the IPv6 for themselves.  Yeah, that's
the ticket!!!!  Just like the straw man that was used to create
this policy proposal!!!

I bet we can really make some great policy based on nonexistence!!

Team ARIN, eat your heat out!  Comics, schomics!

> Clubs have and always will exist, but we should try not to build 
> them into policy.
>

Agreed!  Which is why this entire line of discussion is getting
more and more silly.

I posted a real-life example of router table bloat reducing incentive
to go to IPv6 a while back and nobody wants to address it.  Instead
they would rather try to claim that IPv6 deployment is being
blocked because of the bogyman, then scrap the current restrictions
on giving everyone and their dog a direct assignment - restrictions
that have some good, logical founding in real life experiences
of dealing with actual hardware that moves packets on the Internet -
in favor of a specious claim, unsupported by ANY real-life example
of ANY real org who cannot get IPv6, that tossing all of this out is
going to magically get everyone to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon.

Ted