[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks

[Kevin Kargel]

> 
> On 2010.02.22 19:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I cannot speak for the entire AC, however:
> 
> > I'm all for relaxing the policies for routable space. I'm opposed
> > to replacing them with a policy which was put in place under the
> > guise of creating "non-routable" space.
> >
> > Making assignments for various things out of "a block reserved for
> > that purpose" essentially creates an artificial class system.
> 
> Then there should be no distinction between 'private' and 'public', and
> there should be no difference in policy requirements for acquiring either.
> 
> imho, if this is the case, then the entire discussion of "Non-connected
> networks" is futile, isn't it?
> 
> I mean, if you already know that the path of least resistance is already
> going to be allowed, why bother creating policy?
> 
> Steve
> _______________________________________________

This is my point exactly in all of this.  To my way of thinking you should be able to apply for and receive a block of IPv6 because you have some need for it.  Think of that block as containing both routed and non-routed space and 'wow', you get to decide for yourself how much you want to route globally and how much you don't want to route, then you adjust your advertisements and firewalls accordingly.  

You get the space, you can route it or not route it, you set the borders, and you can change the borders whenever you want.

So long as you keep your contact information current and pay your fees your assignment remains valid, whether you actually route it or not.

I see no reason for setting aside special non-routed space in the pool when you can already use your assigned space and you don't have to route it.

If we did create a separate pool for some reason, then IMHO it depletes the pool the same as any other reason and should have the same requirements.

So yes, as you said "the entire discussion of "Non-connected networks" is futile"