[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12
owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 7 15:37:57 EDT 2010
My biggest concerns with both policies and with 6rd in general are as follows:
1. If it becomes a permanent deployment, it will seriously degrade end user
capabilities and stifle innovation and place unnecessary limits on future
product development. Thus, while it doesn't contain the same evils as
NAT, it may actually have a similar impact to NAT in some ways.
2. As much as I favor liberal allocation/assignment of IPv6 space and
don't generally tend to accept most of the conservatism arguments,
6rd is impressively wasteful, even by my standards. We've got the
ability to support it as a short-term solution, but, I'd hate to see these
assignments become in any way permanent usage.
As such, I cannot support any 6rd or transition policy which does not have
the following safeguards:
1. A time horizon of not more than 5 years before the space is to
be deprecated. (If there is need for an extension, a policy amendment
can take care of this problem).
2. Space from a separate prefix which can be reclaimed in its entirety
and filtered by service providers to facilitate the aforementioned
3. Strict limits on the maximum prefix size to be allocated to any organization
to facilitate the technology.
4. Limitations of not more than 3 such allocations for different transition
technologies per organization. (If you want to deploy a third, then,
deprecate the first and return that space before you can get a fourth)
More information about the ARIN-PPML