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

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:42:44PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
> 
> 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 

	Not for me.  

--bill