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

[James Hess]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I support the principle of this proposal, but am somewhat taken aback by the
> idea that /32s would be the basic unit for smaller, innovative v6 entities.
> Aren't /48s, which still constitute a huge number of addresses, enough? Or
> am I missing something here?

Yes,  a /48   or /56   should be more than adequate for innovative
entities that aren't actual ISPs..  And it should generally be the
entity's upstream/bacbkone provider that assigns this, not ARIN..

If ARIN is to take on the expense of assigning anything to entities
with a smaller address space need, there should be a good reason;
maybe encouraging V6 adoption and unavailability of V6 space from V4
upstreams is a good reason,  at least for some time...


Receiving a /32  to play with at your house, is  as if the IPv4
registry had given you a /16   to play with back in the 1980s....

The fact that some major providers won't propagate something smaller
than a /32  is not a good reason to mismanage the address space and
assign /32s when it's not called for.

Interestingly, that's also an operational rationale...  and yet the
same policy proposal proposes  removing  (1)  because it's an
operationally-related policy.



IPv6 is not an  educational / research  playground,  it's already much
more significant,  and more likely than not will be more so when V4
gets closer to actually running out.....

ARIN policies don't prevent or discourage V6 adoption..
In fact,  they appear to be fairly liberal..

--
-J