[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sat May 30 17:22:53 EDT 2009
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:50:50PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:06:23PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:49:02AM -0700, Stacy Hughes wrote:
> > > A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks that either cannot
> > > or do not want to multihome.I oppose this modification.
> > > Stacy
> > If you aren't multi-homed, you should get an allocation from your
> > upstream, IMO. The block provided by the upstream will be
> > aggregated, most likely, to *their* upstream / peers, so an extra
> > routing table slot would not be needed, thereby saving resources.
> > --
> > Garry Dolley
> > ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181
> what upstream is that? once again, the limiting notion that
> there connectedness to "someone else" is a prerequiste for using IP.
> uniqueness i can understand (someday you might want to be connected,
> but now...)
If uniqueness, and not connectivity, is the concern, look into ULAs
You can use them now, without ever contacting ARIN, or any IRR.
1. RFC 4193, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181
Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions
Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336
More information about the ARIN-PPML