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

[Garry Dolley]

On May 30, 2009, at 2:30 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> 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.

Correct, but given the use cases mentioned, statistically probable  
uniqueness is sufficient.

-- 
Garry