[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sat May 30 17:42:44 EDT 2009
On May 30, 2009, at 2:30 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:22:53PM -0700, Garry Dolley wrote:
>> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:50:50PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
>>> 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.
>>>> 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
>>> 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"
>> Garry Dolley
> sorry - ULA does not assure uniqueness. only that
> statistical probability.
Correct, but given the use cases mentioned, statistically probable
uniqueness is sufficient.
More information about the ARIN-PPML