[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[Michael Richardson]

>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
    Member> Rationale:

    Member> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6
    Member> end-user assignment criteria, removing the dependency on
    Member> IPv4 policy, while maintaining many of the basic concepts
    Member> contained in the current policies.  The order of the

    >> So why does it grandfather IPv4 users, and maintain the notion
    >> that everyone should use RFC1918/"10-net" addressing, which in
    >> IPv6 appears to be ULA.
    >> 
    >> The clauses: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users
    >> assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or;
    >> 
    >> make no sense.

    Owen> This is necessary to assure that those with IPv4 addresses are
    Owen> not prevented from obtaining IPv6 resources.  Otherwise,
    Owen> policy may serve as a further barrier to IPv6 adoption by
    Owen> existing IPv4 users.

Give me a real example.

Current IPv4 policy encourages people to use RFC1918 addresses, 
and prevents those people from easily getting more useful unconnected
IPv6.   

Your proposal does not seem to make it any easier for an enterprise to
get a unique, unconnected /48, and therefore is preventing adopting of IPv6.
(Sorry, ULA is no better than RFC1918, which means that there is no
business case for moving to IPv6)

-- 
]       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.