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

[Joe Maimon]

Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> There is a increadable amount of bad information being spouted here.
>
> To deploy 6rd in parallel with a native deployment you roughly need
> double the IPv6 address space of a straight native deployment.

> Mark

Thanks for the clarification that it is possible to deploy 6rd space 
prudently. If I understand you correctly, at a minimum, you need a 
enough bits to differentiate between all relevant IPv4 pools + the 
number of bits in the largest of these pools.

However, draft policy does seem to leave the door open to much more 
wasteful consumption.

Would we all be comfortable with the suggestion that any policy enabling 
allocations for 6rd transition space have as an upper bound  double the 
address space of a straight native deployment?

And if a specific prefix were to be set aside for this, how large would 
it need to be in order to enable all who would likely need or want to 
deploy resources under this policy to do so?

Joe