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

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 07:29:14PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> tvest at pch.net (Tom Vest) writes:
> 
> > If I remember correctly, creating a swamp only serves to constantly
> > remind those who are stuck with it afterward that swamp creation was / is
> > a very bad idea. Besides, if you have an idea of where/how one might
> > build a more "solid foundation", persuading us now, up front might be a
> > more effective way of bringing people around than intentionally degrading
> > the only "ground" that's currently apparent.
> 
> there are more than two visions (pure hierarchy and pure swamp).  for example:
> 
> neighborhood or metro-area mesh networking where local cheap highspeed ISO-L2
> is used to glue geographies together in a way that no telco or backbone net
> is involved... would make better use of available glass and silicon than the
> pure hierarchical model IETF CIDR gave us.  this sounds like a bad idea since
> it would either mean a global swamp (everybody's /56 in the core) or monopoly
> status for incumbants (everybody's /56 came from the same /32) or mass route
> pollution (everybody's /56 becomes a metro-area cutout).
> 
> but what if multihoming was automatic and universal and robust?  could a metro
> or neighborhood get unrouteable / non-global IPv6 space for an ISO-L2 overlay
> made up of a hairball of private wireless, private wire, private fiber, and
> automatically use those addresses when talking to reachable endpoints?  (this
> would require something better than RIPv2, so don't try it at home today!)
> 
> or what if a metropolitan connectivity authority wanted to get an IPv6 block
> for all of its FTTH and mobile/wireless endpoints, and rather than buying
> transit for this block, they set up a market of cooperating backbone operators
> and consumers, doing IP-in-IP to deliver global reachability?  (this is like
> what some 802 networks do today but wide area bridging does not scale well.)
> 
> i'm not proposing either of these, not exactly.  i'm saying there ought to
> be room in the RIR allocation policy framework for addressing models that
> are not dreamt of by those who love swamps and those who fear swamps.
> -- 
> Paul Vixie
> KI6YSY


	indeed there should be.

--bill