[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for CriticalInfrastructure - revised

George Bonser gbonser at seven.com
Sun Nov 21 19:28:57 EST 2010

> I'm fairly sure CI wasn't intended to be in 4.10, to quote " a
> contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to
> IPv6 deployment."  I have a hard time arguing CI IPv4 is necessary to
> facilitate IPv6 deployment, CI IPv4 is needed because it is /critical/
> to operating the IPv4 network.

I agree that v6 facilitation is not CI.  

That we are even having this discussion is proof that the entire thing
is about to be severely broken.  The only process that is really going
to work is wholesale abandonment of v4, treating v6 as the "standard"
path, and treating v4 as the "special case".

How many providers have actively polled their customers on their v6
plans?  I have connectivity with two major providers who *still* don't
provide native v6 on my link to them.

This is going to break.  The whole thing is going to break. People have
waited too long to deploy v6.  It is really already too late, in my
opinion.  People should not have waited until v4 runout to deploy v6 but
that is what is going to happen and it is going to be a giant

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list