[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 113: IPv6 for 6rd

[Tony Hain]

One of the points of 6rd was that to the outside world it looks like the
existing IPv6 allocation of the ISP. The fundamental problem that needs to
be overcome is the brain-dead concept that every ISP should get a /32; when
that block size should only be given to a start-up ISP 'with NO existing
customers'. Every other ISP should receive a block size large enough to
accommodate sub-delegating prefixes to every one of their existing
customers.

What this policy proposal needs to say is that '6rd needs to be counted as a
separate & parallel deployment' for the calculation of the appropriate block
size. There are multiple ways to implement it, so there can't be
one-size-fits-all language, just guidelines so the reviewers know how to
interpret that deployment. There is absolutely no reason to put in anything
more than 'allow it to exist in parallel', because once the 6rd deployment
is decommissioned, the ISP will have a need to add new customers somewhere.
As long as the original allocation covered the -entire- existing customer
set plus what they need for 6rd in the interim, they still have a single
aggregate large enough to grow into for some time to come. 

Forcing fragmented allocation simply to support the demented notion of 'need
to control' is not in the best interest of the routing system, and therefore
the entire Internet. The 'justification system' can get in the way of common
sense, and what this policy proposal needs to do is help broaden the
perspective of the reviewers so the right thing can happen for the long
term.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:41 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 113: IPv6 for 6rd
> 
> > I think the confusion arises from the first sentence of the
> > proposal, and I recommend that it be reworded if my second
> > interpretation is not actually the intent of the proposal.
> > I'll reserve judgment about whether I'm for or against until
> > I can get that clarified.
> 
> It could use a bit more rewording than that.
> 
> Why is there a technical example in the policy text instead of
> in the rationale?
> 
> I'd be in favor of a policy that allowed holders of /32 or bigger
> blocks justified normally, to ask for an additional larger
> and TEMPORARY block to deploy the transition technology known
> as 6RD. Of course, when the public Internet has transitioned
> to IPv6 and 6RD is being decommissioned in favor of simple
> plain IPv6, then the 6RD allocation would be returned to ARIN.
> It would also be nice for ARIN to ask the question, every year,
> When will you return your 6RD allocation and to publish that
> target date in the whois directory entry for the allocation.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.