[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks

Azinger, Marla marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com
Tue Feb 23 11:33:25 EST 2010

Creating policy that wont be followed by networks makes the publishing organization look ineffective.  

Writing policy that isn't part of an organizations charter shouldn't be supported.  

Writing BCP where it belongs should be supported.


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steve Bertrand
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:33 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Multihomed networks

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?

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 mailing list