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

James Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Fri May 29 22:41:09 EDT 2009

> 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.

And it was that liberal allocation of  /24s   partly to blame for why
IPv4 exhaustion is coming sooner  than otherwise....

There simply   aren't  enough  /32s  in existence  for _everyone_
to get one to play with.

IPv6 /32s are just as limited in number as the number of IPv4  /32s....

The policies are liberal,  but the line has to be drawn somewhere,
otherwise exhaustion is inevitable.

It's really only adequately justifiable for  ISPs to get a /32
allocation..  or large organizations with many sites  to get a /32

I oppose the policy as written.   200 sites may be too many, but there
should be a qualification of number of sites,  before such a large
block is assigned.

And also: the statement “by advertising that connectivity through its single
aggregated address allocation”

Should not be removed,  just because it has operational significance.
It also has address numbering significance.

Given the relative unfamiliarity of  organizations operating IPv6 networks,
and even of the basic ground rules, such as:  make sure to advertise
through the single aggregated allocation  (instead of or in addition
to any other smaller advertisements)

Such reminders and applying that particular basic rule as policy should
do more good than harm.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list