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

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> >> If ARIN really wanted to take a step forward towards helping the
> >> quality
> >> of IPv6 deployment on the Internet via deprecation of IPv6 space, it
> >> would start efforts to see 2002::/16 deprecated. First things first.
> > It is none of ARIN's business. That particular allocation was made by
> > the IETF/IANA and is outside of ARIN's control.

> My comment above was in response to the suggestion that ARIN "should
> make strong efforts to communicate and preserve the notion that
> [RFC5969] is a transitional and therefore temporary solution".
> Certainly, if ARIN should "communicate" that RFC 5969 is bad, it should
> do the same for RFC 3056 and 3068.

Who says 6RD is bad? 6RD and RFC 5969 which documents it, are both GOOD
things because they will accelerate the switch to IPv6. The discussions
are about ARIN policies which SUPPORT and FACILITATE 6RD. But the fact is
that 6RD is a temporary stopgap measure. That is not bad, that is just the
facts. And we should be clear that we are only supporting and facilitating
6RD as a means to an end, namely native IPv6.

> That's not what observable data suggests. Broken 6to4 has a measurable
> impact on a broken IPv6 connectivity, and one of the reasons some
> content providers are very hesitant to offer AAAAs 6to4 hosts. That's
> not the case with 6rd. The technology is similar, but how it is
> deployed
> and operated is very different.

This is not really an ARIN problem. Network operators have to pick and choose
their technology based on their needs and understanding. In any case, ARIN is
not involved with 6to4, but ARIN can play a role in facilitating 6RD.

ARIN is not the Architectural Regulator of Internet Networks. It is the 
American Registry of Internet Numbers. ARIN does not run the Internet, not even
in the USA. ARIN does not specify the Internet's architecture and design.

--Michael Dillon