[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks
owen at delong.com
Mon Feb 22 19:59:52 EST 2010
I cannot speak for the entire AC, however:
1. I do not think that IPv6 is a rare or precious commodity.
2. I do think we need some controls on IPv6 or it will become such.
3. I do think that there is a lot of pushback in the community when
we try to create policies that do not take routing policy into
account. Personally, I wish that we could focus strictly on
numbering policy and leave routing policy out of ARIN policy,
but, the community thus far has been unwilling to allow that.
There are members of the AC and members of the community
on both sides of this question.
4. I have expressed concerns and continue to have concerns that
if we create two classes of address space and make one significantly
easier and/or cheaper to obtain than the other based on the
belief that we can draw a magic line in the sand about routable
or not, we are going to learn the following lessons:
1. Magic lines don't work.
2. People will obtain the resources they need through the path
of least resistance, then, push for those resources to fit their
needs regardless of original intent of resource policy.
(Think about people who buy inexpensive houses next
to airports, then complain about airplane noise and try
to have the airport removed.)
In other words, I think that "non-routable" space would get
routed and the policies for routable space would become
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. Such
systems mostly serve to promote discrimination and allow members
of some subset of the classes to facilitate subjugation of members
of other classes. Often, this is viewed as desirable by the members
of the subjugating classes. Rarely is it considered ideal by the
members of the subjugated classes.
On Feb 22, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> writes:
> Kevin> For my own edification, why are we treating IPv6 like it is a
> Kevin> rare and precious commodity?
> ARIN AC distinctly gives me the impression that they think IPv6 is
> a rare and precious thing.
> When pushed, someone says that there are concerns about routing slots, and
> how someone might use unconnected network policy to go around ARIN
> "routing policy" to get routable networks.
> When cross-examined about this, the community says that ARIN does not
> concern itself with a policy about what gets routed --- contradicting the
> concern over routing slots, and ignoring why we are asking for clearly
> identifable bits of address space for non-connected networks so that it
> won't be a concern.
> What's clear to me is that ARIN as a community isn't interested in
> solving this problem. The IETF had considered this to be a RIR policy
> issue for many years, but apparently it falls into a crack.
> ] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
> ] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
> Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
> then sign the petition.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML