[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

[Gary Giesen]

If the ONLY concern with either policy is the consumption of address
space, than we need have a good look in the mirror.

The sheer enormity of the v6 address space means even if we screw this up,
we still have lots of address space and time to make it right.
Overallocating will not affect routing table size (it's still a single
prefix being advertised). We need something NOW so people can start
deploying IPv6 if we're serious about making this happen. We CANNOT afford
to go through another policy cycle, we just don't have the time. Unless
you like technologies like CGN, we need to give something to people so
they can get moved over to v6 NOW.

GG

On 10-10-07 3:05 PM, "Joe Maimon" <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:

>I am opposed to both proposals because the camel creeping from right to
>left of the bitspace is really starting to concern me.
>
>Transition space for 6rd can in theory justify a /16 allocation if you
>are doing /48 per customer.
>
>Joe
>_______________________________________________
>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.