[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sat May 30 20:53:11 EDT 2009
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:30:51PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 29/05/2009 3:37, "John Schnizlein" <schnizlein at isoc.org> wrote:
> > But there is a whole (IPv4-scale) Internet's worth of class-A
> > addresses to hand out. Conserving addresses really matters MUCH less
> > than default-free route-table size. Thinking about need really has to
> > shift when there really is no scarcity.
> I wasn't trying to argue for more focus on conservation. I was trying to
> point out that it is very difficult to maintain two separate policies for
> two separate classes of organisations. Sometimes the edges get blurred and
> it's hard to work out where someone fits and whether that is fair.
> Does the provider/end user distinction make things easier or does it make
> things harder? I suspect the latter.
I think it makes it easier. Because it doesn't make a distinction
based on "need" but rather on subsequent assignments
1. End user gets a /48 initial allocation
2. An organization planning to assign /48's to end users get a /32
I didn't use the word ISP anywhere or suggest what the organization
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