[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us
Thu Jul 29 16:17:59 EDT 2010

On 7/29/2010 12:52, Joe Maimon wrote:
> I agree with your technical assessment. It is unnecessary and simply
> prevails currently as the path of least resistance due to vendors and
> operators inability to expend the extra effort to properly abstract
> address endpoints used in communication off of the physical interfaces
> used to route them.
> From expensive firewalls that cannot accept dial up vpn on a loopback to
> cheap CPE which cannot even do unnumbered serial, the list of who to
> blame is endless and covers all areas. ICMP generation is simply the
> excuse which sounds the most legitimate, as it will tend to cause
> violation of a common interpretation of  standards. Monitoring and
> visibility also rank up there. However, these can all be worked around,
> if the desire to do exists.
> That ARIN should be explicitly restricting what is justified use other
> than generally basing acceptable justification activities that conform
> to prevailing normative practices is an idea I am not quite comfortable
> with. The reward would need to be worth the risk. I know of one specific
> utilization singled out, that of name based virtual hosting, but has
> there been any others?
> Is it wise to continue to craft policy that engages and addresses
> specific behaviors? I would have to be overwhelmingly convinced on a
> case by case basis.

I believe it's counterproductive to spend more time coming up with more
workarounds for IPv4 while at the same time expecting that IPv6 adoption
is going to take hold. Let IPv4 go. As long as there are still people
working on making it last longer that's all the more reason for everyone
who hasn't started with IPv6 yet to keep putting it off.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list