[arin-ppml] IPv6 Allocation Planning

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 8/11/2010 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Charles O'Hern wrote:
>
>> George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
>>> [[WEG]] Let's be clear - you appear to be able to obtain (justify) space, but cost is the issue. Not trying to minimize that, I understand that the bottom line is that you still have no IPv6 PI space, but since we're trying to discuss changes in allocation justification, I want to make sure I'm understanding the issue you're raising. It appears to go back to the overarching discussion of whether PA space is actually going to meet the needs of some portion of the internet community or not. Speaking for my own employer, we'll accept announcements of IPv6 PA space that isn't ours as long as it's at least a /48, and I think most other ISPs will end up doing the same since that's more or less status quo on IPv4.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Wes George
>>>
>>>
>>> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel 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.
>>>
>>>
>> This is refreshing to hear.  Its been quite a number of years since we
>> attempted to get our upstreams to accept and re-advertise PA space.  Oru
>> worries in this regard are based on the refusal to do so on the part of
>> all of our previous providers.  This includes your own employer Sprint
>> (prior to M&A with Nextel), but this was many years ago.  If policies
>> have changed, this is great news.

We used Sprint for 3 years back in 1999-2002 as I recall and they had no 
problem advertising IPv4 space assigned by Cable & Wireless.  This
must have been MANY, MANY years ago that they didn't do it.

Ted