[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
matthew at matthew.at
Sat May 30 00:02:57 EDT 2009
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> By contrast, the problem of table bloat in routers is very real.
>> Absolutely, but should not be ARIN's problem. ARIN should make it
>> possible for organizations (be they ISPs or not) to obtain unique
>> allocations from ARIN's portion of the IPv6 address space. It should
>> be easy to get allocations which are aggregated in such a way that
>> they are less expensive to route, but that shouldn't drive policy.
> OK then taking that argument to it's logical conclusion then let's just
> assign every last man and woman on the face of the earth an IPv6 number
> drawn out of a random lottery pool and let them plug in and have at it!
Well, you could do exactly that. And they could have their own chunk of
IPv6 space *and* a separate, routeable PA address as well. And we
*still* wouldn't run out.
>>> are essentially asking thousands of orgs out there to put money into
>>> tens of thousands of routers out there to replace them with new gear
>>> that will hold and manage a fantastically gigantic IPv6 table,
>> No. We are asking ARIN to fairly allocate reasonably-sized parts of
>> IPv6 to entities that ask, in return for no more than reasonable
> A single snowflake by itself harms no one.
> A trillion snowflakes creates an avalanche that kills people.
Lots of people having non-routeable or non-routed addresses isn't going
to kill anyone.
Heck, even a big explosion in routing table size won't kill anyone.
Maybe someone will take the time to solve the problem more elegantly
than it has been so far, and it won't even matter.
> Either extreme - having a single provider or having every user on
> the Internet get a random IPv6 number - is bad.
And any system other than "anyone can get any size they can justify"
will be unfair to someone.
More information about the ARIN-PPML