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

[Garry Dolley]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 05:59:41PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Garry Dolley wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:34:24PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> Garry Dolley wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:14:56PM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote:
>>>>> This mentality will only serve to slow ipv6 adoption in application and
>>>>> content.  The easier we make it for non-isps to get portable space, the
>>>>> more
>>>>> development will occur.  Basic supply and demand theory in action
>>>>> here....
>>>> Can't non-ISPs simply apply for a /48 end-user allocation? [1]
>>>> I don't get this argument I'm seeing in this thread that without the
>>>> proposed policy modification, IPv6 adoption will be hindered.
>>>
>>> Yes. I did - and I currently have - a /48 under that policy. I'm 
>>> announcing
>>> it right now over BGP and actively using it, actually.
>>>
>>> The only problem would be if people started placing filter boundaries at
>>> /32 for all portable IPv6 space and ignored /48's.
>>
>> Indeed, that would present a problem to you if /48's were ignored.
>>
>> If every end-site gets a globally routable address (of any size, who
>> cares if it is a /56, or /48 or /40 or /32), where do we aggregate?
>> Do we just stop aggregating?  Do we find ways to hold a very large
>> number of routes in hardware?
>>
> If every current connected org on the planet that has routable IPv4
> space and an ASN in the active routing table were to obtain their
> own portable IPv6 space and announce as many as 10 routes, we
> would still have a smaller IPv6 routing table than the current IPv4
> routing table.

Care to share your math on this?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wasn't able to come to the same
conclusion.

-- 
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