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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Fri May 29 15:02:27 EDT 2009

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>  A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks 
>> that either cannot or do not want to multihome.
> Not if you use something like the wording I suggested 
> where you explicitly say that all ISPs are assumed
> to qualify.
> The point is that we don't want to give /32 to just 
> anyone. 

Why? Either there's enough that doing that has no risk of ever running 
out, or there aren't enough, in which case *all* the existing policies 
are too liberal.

If your argument is routing table size, that's a separate problem that 
isn't ARIN's problem.

Back in the (actually not so) early IPv4 days, I got an IPv4 /24 for my 
house. My friends and I learned a whole lot about setting up IP networks 
using our real-world address. Didn't cost us a cent, and many of us have 
gone on to do more interesting things in the Internet world.

Today, if my kids wanted to get a real IPv6 /32 to play with, they'd 
have to pay a bunch of money and fill out a bunch of paperwork. So they 
won't be doing that. Even though there's plenty of IPv6 space for 
everyone on the planet to play.

Either we want to encourage adoption or we want to keep this as tightly 
controlled as IPv4 has become. The former seems like a better idea, 
given how IPv4 is going.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list