[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
owen at delong.com
Sat Jan 16 02:01:56 EST 2010
On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "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
If you have ROUTABLE (believe it or not, lots of people like being
connected to the internet instead of connected to something
sort of connected to the internet) IPv4 addresses, and, you want
to get routable IPv6 addresses, that is supported in current
policy and preserved in this rewrite.
> 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)
Sure it does... An unconnected /48 is a /48 of routable space that you
don't route on the internet. Additionally, ULA is quite a bit better than
RFC-1918 in that it grants you at least statistical uniqueness, and, if you
choose to participate in the SIXXS ULA registry (which I think is a bad
idea, but, I can't deny it exists, so, for people that think it's a good idea,
there you go), you can get registry-like uniqueness in ULA.
Finally, it is not the job of policy to create or expand the business
case for IPv6. It is the job of policy to avoid hinderance to legitimate
usage of IPv6 to the extent possible without otherwise damaging
the stability of the internet. Making the business case is up to the
employees of a given business and other efforts such as some
of ARIN's outreach activities.
More information about the ARIN-PPML