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

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:22:53PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:50:50PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:06:23PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:49:02AM -0700, Stacy Hughes wrote:
> > > >  A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks that either cannot
> > > > or do not want to multihome.I oppose this modification.
> > > > Stacy
> > > 
> > > If you aren't multi-homed, you should get an allocation from your
> > > upstream, IMO.  The block provided by the upstream will be
> > > aggregated, most likely, to *their* upstream / peers, so an extra
> > > routing table slot would not be needed, thereby saving resources.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Garry Dolley
> > > ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181
> > 
> > 	what upstream is that?  once again, the limiting notion that
> > 	there connectedness to "someone else" is a prerequiste for using IP.
> > 	uniqueness i can understand (someday you might want to be connected,
> > 	but now...)
> 
> If uniqueness, and not connectivity, is the concern, look into ULAs
> [1].
> 
> You can use them now, without ever contacting ARIN, or any IRR.
> 
> 
> 1. RFC 4193, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
> 
> -- 
> Garry Dolley

	sorry - ULA does not assure uniqueness. only that 
	statistical probability.

--bill