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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Nov 17 15:07:14 EST 2010

On Nov 17, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> On 11/17/2010 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> On 11/17/2010 8:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>> Policy Proposal 121: Sensible IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
>>>> ARIN acknowledges receipt of the policy proposal that can be found below.
>>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
>>>> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>>>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
>>>> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
>>>> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
>>>> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
>>>> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
>>>> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>> The Rationale section is missing a discussion of the impact of this
>>> policy change on DFZ growth.
>> I believe that if anything, it would reduce DFZ growth, but, expect it
>> to be mostly neutral. I left this out of the rationale section because
>> I didn't think the impact one way or another would be enough to
>> be particularly relevant to the discussion.
>> Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
> I think it is important to put into the Rationale the statement that
> this is DFZ-growth neutral, that is, if you believe that it IS DFZ-growth neutral.
> By inserting the statement that you feel it's DFZ-growth-neutral into
> the Rationale you are showing that you have responsibly considered the
> impact of modifying the qualification criteria on the DFZ.
> That makes all the difference in the world.  Lacking that it makes the
> reader wonder if this proposal has really been well thought out.
I don't believe I am changing the qualifying criteria. At least not significantly.

What I am changing is the amount of space a qualifying entity can get.

By increasing the maximum amount of space allowed (possibly dramatically),
if anything, this should reduce the impact on the DFZ.

However, I really don't think that the IPv6 DFZ size is of tremendous concern.
I think that the DFZ size is much more of an IPv4 issue. The IPv6 DFZ, even
when IPv6 is fully deployed is likely to be less than 20% of the current

I think that excessive focus on DFZ size has flawed ARIN policy for years
and including it in the rationale for this policy would only serve to further
that practice.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list