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

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Fri May 29 19:05:03 EDT 2009

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 03:12:18PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Hi Stacy,
> On 29/05/2009 3:01, "Stacy Hughes" <ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Everyone, 
> > Chuck precisely makes one of my points here.  
> > When I voted against this concept last time around, I felt just like Ted.
> >  Like, you're not a real ISP or player if you don't have 200 customers.  
> > But there are real ISPs that are small that deserve the minimum allocation of
> > IPv6 just as much as the 200+ers.  
> I suspect that one problem we have is that there is such a huge gap between
> the size of the standard direct assignment to an end user and the standard
> allocation to an ISP.
> Matthew Kaufman makes a good point when he says that "Really there shouldn't
> even *be* a distinction". In a needs based system, perhaps what is needed is
> a distribution process that doesn't distinguish based on the network
> operator's business type but on the size of the network they will operate.
> If the scale didn't jump from /48(ish) -> /32(ish) we could focus on
> distributing address space based on documented need rather than try and find
> a form of words that describes ISPs but doesn't give a /32 to everyone.
> Regards,
> Leo Vegoda

	which begs the question Leo, why does the scale make that
	jump?  is there a real operational reason for it?  or is it
	an artifact of previous century thinking?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list