[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] [Fwd: Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process]

[Seth Mattinen]

Member Services wrote:
> 
> Q. Why allocate the /48's from a pool only for /48's, /32's from a /32
> pool, etc.? Why not allocate from just one pool?
> 
> A. If all assignments in a particular pool are /32 then any route in
> the /32 pool which is longer than /32 is a traffic engineering (TE)
> route. As a router operator you can filter and discard TE routes if
> you find they give you insufficient benefit. The routes you filter
> don't cost you any money; only the routes you keep carry a price tag.
> 

Hallelujah, I dislike TE with a passion.

Overall I like this policy. I agree that the utilization concept should
be abandoned for IPv6 and there's nothing inherently wrong with classful
addressing other than there simply wasn't enough space to go around
under IPv4.


> The above notwithstanding, it may be advisable to discount /40s and
> /32s to a much lower price during IPv6's general deployment process in
> order to encourage adoption. Folks who already hold /31's should
> probably also get a big break on the $20k fee for a good long while,
> perhaps until the first time they request an additional block without
> offering a plan to return the legacy addresses. 

To encourage adoption it should be as cheap as possible for the early
adopters. How would this integrate with IPv4 fees? Or would we pay
totally separate IPv4 and IPv6 fees?

I have a question: is there any reason to trade an existing /32 for one
under this policy?

~Seth