[arin-ppml] Number of routes, IPv6 vrs IPv4.

Garry Dolley gdolley at arpnetworks.com
Sun May 31 21:17:33 EDT 2009

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:11:52PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:


> So the critical items going forward to me are:
>   - Remove the totally arbitrary 200 site requirement.  There are plenty
>     of thriving ISP's with less than 200 customers.  Colo based
>     companies come to mind, your 100,000 sq ft data center may have 10,
>     10,000 sq ft customers, and 500,000 machines in the building.
>   - Make sure everyone with an ASN can easily get a right sized IPv6
>     allocation.  Let's make good on the idea of "one route per ASN".
>     Let's insure everyone in the game can get space easily on that
>     basis.
>   - Come up with sensible requirements for new entrants.  "200
>     customers" is not a sensible requirement.  Starting someone off
>     with a /32 and then not talking to them is not a sensible way
>     of doing business.  RFC 2050, and IPv4 both had the notion of 
>     "slow start", which fit with the idea of needs based allocations.
>     New entrants came back at 3, 6, and 12 months, and then yearly.
>     If they were allocating "wrong" it was caught quickly, and fixed.
>     We need some mechanism to talk to new entrants more often than
>     every 10 years, make sure they are following the community
>     rules, and clean up messes before they have collected for 10 years.
> I don't think we have proposal(s) that get this right on the table yet.

Agreed.  Very well written post.

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