[arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 12:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Preemptive assignment is no magic bullet. Some of these folks will
>> just find the next reason for delay. But why allow ARIN to be the
>> reason they haven't deployed yet?
>
> I guess I have ot ask why do I care if a private commercial enterprise that
> is not an ISP wants to use IPv4 for the next 100 years?

Hi Ted,

Private disconnected networks aren't under discussion here. I don't
care what protocol they use either.

We're talking only about folks who already announce routes into the
public BGP table. If you do any commerce with these folks (and you do)
then you're going to maintain connectivity to them. Until they deploy
IPv6, you will maintain IPv4 connectivity despite the extra cost.

Money. Their non-deployment of IPv6 costs you money. That's why you care.


On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK]
<Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
> PD space (assuming your upstream does IPv6) obviates this
> argument 99% of the time because there are no ARIN fees to
> pay. If renumbering is more expensive than the ARIN fee for
> PI space, that makes your business case for you, otherwise
> you should be using PD.

If your percentage is on target then the folks we're talking about
here -- those who already announce routes into the BGP table -- are
squarely within the 1% for whom ISP space does not fit. We know this
because gee, they have an ARIN AS number and are announcing routes
into the BGP table. Anybody can claim need but demonstration doesn't
get much clearer than actual BGP routing on the public Internet.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004