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

[Garry Dolley]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:58:13PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> The end user policy gives out /48's.  If we want folks to get a
>> network they can play with in their garage, let's do it under the
>> end user policy.  This policy proposal affects the ISP section,
>> giving out /32's for the express purpose of assigning /48's to other
>> entities.  Let's leave it for folks who are really ISP's, and really
>> providing services to others.
>>   
> Ah. "Folks who are really ISPs". This is as bad as the com-priv list in 
> 1992... We *don't know* who is/will be "an ISP". A school district 
> providing service to all its schools? A corporation with a dozen 
> subsidiaries around the world? A guy in his garage who gives away free 
> wireless to his neighborhood?
>
> Really there shouldn't even *be* a distinction. If you need a /whatever of 
> IPv6 and can write a convincing letter to that effect, you should be able 
> to get at least that much unique IPv6 space. Whether it can be routed now 
> or in the future is really between you and whichever transit provider you 
> choose *should you even need external connectivity*.

It is not only between you and the transit provider.  It is also
between you and all the networks / network operators that
collectively make up the Internet.  If I'm going to carry your
prefix in my routing table and the resources of my routing table are
finite, and more routing table resources often costs me a
appreciable amount of additional money (money out of my pocket, not
yours), then I have a say in whether you get a "/whatever"
allocation just b/c you wrote a convincing letter.

This is why we are discussing the policy proposal ;)

For the record, I oppose this policy proposal.

-- 
Garry Dolley
ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181
Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions
Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336
Blog http://scie.nti.st