[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 11/17/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Ignoring the personal attacks, I've answered Ted at length in private email.
>

Owen has indeed responded to the DFZ issue to me via private e-mail.  It 
is a logical, concrete response that really has nothing at all with the 
items listed here.  I wish that he would have included it in his 
response here.

Ted

> Publicly, I will state:
>
> 1.	In IPv4, address policy and routing policy got tied together because
> 	of the need to manage the tradeoff between scarcity and table
> 	growth. In IPv6, scarcity is no longer an issue.
>
> 2.	An ARIN allocation is not guaranteed to be routable and address
> 	policy should focus on good stewardship of the address space
> 	leaving the routing issues for groups of operators to coordinate
> 	in a more operational forum.
>
> 3.	The fee recommendation in the rationale is not a fee reduction.
> 	It focuses on making it possible for the board to eliminate the
> 	disparity of IPv4 and IPv6 fees at the very small end. This is
> 	not likely to increase the number of smaller ISPs that multihome,
> 	but, is intended to decrease the number of smaller ISPs that
> 	procrastinate IPv6 deployment as long as possible since
> 	they will no longer be facing a $1,000 disincentive to do so.
>
> 4.	If there are others who feel that explaining that this policy
> 	will reduce DFZ growth if it has any impact on the DFZ
> 	is an important element in the rationale, please let me know.
> 	If there is significant support for this, I will include it.
>