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

[Garry Dolley]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:54:24AM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Davis, Terry L wrote:
>>
>> Stacy
>>
>>  
>> I fully support this proposal. 
>>  
>> I think we can look at the current almost total lack of IPv6 
>> implementation anywhere (not even significantly in universities and not at 
>> all in startups) and realize that our current policies are not 
>> supporting/encouraging v6 implementations.
>>
> I agree. I also believe that the popular press accounts of there being so 
> many IPv6 addresses that they're essentially free conflict strongly with 
> the current ARIN fee structure, which is another impediment to people who 
> might otherwise experiment with IPv6 and build new business models around 
> it.
>
> If there's really so many that that's true, anyone ought to be able to get 
> some for approximately nothing. And if the counter-argument is that the 
> administrative overhead is too high for that, then maybe more automation 
> would be easier with a less-restrictive policy (such as this one).

In terms of addresses, yes, there are more addresses in IPv6 that it
is hard to imagine.

But not in terms of subnets.

This is why number of addresses is rarely talked about in IPv6 now,
but rather the number of subnets.

There are not enough /32 subnets to give away to everyone.  There
are as many /32 subnets in IPv6 as there are in IPv4.  Just in IPv4,
the /32 subnet just held 1 address.  We are running out of IPv4, so
by the same token, if we liberally give away /32's in IPv6, we'll
face the same exhaustion.  Even faster since people are proposing to
loosen up the policies that would not have ever been thought of in
IPv4.

-- 
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