[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

Garry Dolley gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sat May 30 23:50:19 EDT 2009

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 07:43:40PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Garry Dolley wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:58:13PM -0700, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> Really there shouldn't even *be* a distinction. If you need a /whatever 
>>> of IPv6 and can write a convincing letter to that effect, you should be 
>>> able to get at least that much unique IPv6 space. Whether it can be 
>>> routed now or in the future is really between you and whichever transit 
>>> provider you choose *should you even need external connectivity*.
>> It is not only between you and the transit provider.  It is also
>> between you and all the networks / network operators that
>> collectively make up the Internet.  
> No. There may be issues between my transit provider and their transit 
> provider and/or peers, but that's one of the things I pay them for.

The route that you pay your transit provider to advertise will
propagate to my network.  We are all connected, it is not as
segregated as you think.

>> If I'm going to carry your
>> prefix in my routing table and the resources of my routing table are
>> finite, and more routing table resources often costs me a
>> appreciable amount of additional money (money out of my pocket, not
>> yours), then I have a say in whether you get a "/whatever"
>> allocation just b/c you wrote a convincing letter.
> You can carry whatever routes you want in your own routers, subject of 
> course to any agreements you might have with peers.

Correct, I can filter as I please.

>> This is why we are discussing the policy proposal ;)
> This is also where we get into the part where you're asking ARIN to act not 
> just as a registrar of unique addresses, but instead to also enforce your 
> idea of who should have routeable addresses on the global Internet you are 
> part of.

Not really.  ARIN even states that assigned addresses are not
guaranteed to be routable [1].

Network operators decide what is routable.  I'm not asking ARIN to
decide this.

Nevertheless, saying that "ARIN shouldn't dictate routing policy" is
not equivalent to "ARIN should reduce the barrier to entry for a
/32" or "ARIN should have an open policy for /32 assignments"

I oppose the current policy proposal.  My reasoning has already been
discussed, and relates to routing table size.  That's my opinion,
others may have different reasons to oppose or promote.

1. https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six42

Garry Dolley
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
Blog http://scie.nti.st

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list