[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sat May 30 20:21:26 EDT 2009
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 02:34:24PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Garry Dolley wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:14:56PM -0500, Chris Malayter wrote:
>>> This mentality will only serve to slow ipv6 adoption in application and
>>> content. The easier we make it for non-isps to get portable space, the
>>> development will occur. Basic supply and demand theory in action
>> Can't non-ISPs simply apply for a /48 end-user allocation? 
>> I don't get this argument I'm seeing in this thread that without the
>> proposed policy modification, IPv6 adoption will be hindered.
> Yes. I did - and I currently have - a /48 under that policy. I'm announcing
> it right now over BGP and actively using it, actually.
> The only problem would be if people started placing filter boundaries at
> /32 for all portable IPv6 space and ignored /48's.
Indeed, that would present a problem to you if /48's were ignored.
If every end-site gets a globally routable address (of any size, who
cares if it is a /56, or /48 or /40 or /32), where do we aggregate?
Do we just stop aggregating? Do we find ways to hold a very large
number of routes in hardware?
I really don't know..
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