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

[George, Wes E [NTK]]

 -----Original Message-----
From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 7:12 PM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process

> [weg] I don't view expanding an existing
> network to match the standardized (and
> only available) netmasks as in any way
> unfair to new entrants.

Oh! You mean expand the legacy prefix lengths to the closest thing to
a uniform length possible rather than let them just sit there, but
restrain the fees until the registrant next asks for more addresses.
That way the two legacy pools may become filterable too and the
reserved address space isn't lost. That's a right good idea.

Would you object to seeing it as a follow-on or parallel proposal
rather than part of the initial proposal? There may be complications
lying in the details of how ARIN has allocated addresses in the legacy
pool. I'd rather those complications not bog down 103.

[weg] Yes, exactly. I'm not necessarily making any comment on fees one way or the other, just thinking in terms of standardizing some of what would now be odd allocation sizes where it's possible to do so. However, I don't think this should be a separate proposal. What I would recommend is language in this proposal that talks to it but that doesn't make it a hard and fast requirement. In other words, give the recommendation that this would be the way to maximize the benefits of this proposal on existing allocations, without writing detailed specs on how it would be handled for all possible cases. Ultimately, that part would be up to ARIN staff to figure out, the proposal simply needs to sketch out the expectation. If it's not possible because of the way certain things are allocated, we're not necessarily any worse off, and you're not advocating renumbering to fix it, so I don't see how it would bog down this proposal.

Thanks
Wes George

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.