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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Nov 17 16:30:17 EST 2010

Ignoring the personal attacks, I've answered Ted at length in private email.

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list