[arin-ppml] A modest proposal for IPv6 address allocations

[William Herrin]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 3:05 PM, William Herrin<bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> So here's a crazy plan:
>
> A. The first IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /48. To justify it,
> you need to be multihomed. There are no other qualifications. The /48
> will be allocated from a pool from which only /48's are allocated.
>
> B. The second IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /32. To justify it
> you need to demonstrate that you've efficiently used the /48 for some
> reasonable definition of efficient, that you've implemented SWIP or
> RWHOIS for your downstream assignments and that you will run out of
> space in the /48 within one year. The /32 will be allocated from a
> pool reserved for allocating /32's.
>
> C. The third IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /24. To justify it
> you need to demonstrate that you've efficiently used the /32, that you
> will run out of space in the /32 within five years, and you have to
> first return the original /48 you were assigned. The /24 will be
> allocated from a pool reserved for allocating /24's.
>
> D. There is no fourth IPv6 allocation at this time. It is not
> presently possible to consume an entire /24 without atrocious waste.

Two issues with the plan which need more consideration:

1. What happens when entities merge?
2. What happens when entities split?


If two entities holding /32's merge, you now have one entity with two
/32's. Do they have to give up one of the /32's within some period of
time? Give up one of them before they can upgrade to /24? Never give
up the second /32? What makes sense here?

When entities split its even harder. The /32 in this plan is
indivisible. It can only travel with one of the two new entities. Is
that going to be acceptable? Or does it scuttle the idea?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004