[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation - Last Call (text revised)

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Christopher Morrow
<christopher.morrow at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:19 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> To clarify, the /24 maximum and the designated block apply ONLY
>>> to subsequent allocations for transitional purposes. Subsequent allocations
>>> for native IPv6 deployment are not restricted or encumbered in any way
>>> other than the standards set forth in existing policy.
>>
>> Ah. In that case, I OPPOSE draft policy 2010-12 as written.
>>
>> I would support a revised version that applies the /24 limit to any
>> subsequent allocation _for which the prior efficient utilization
>> requirements have been waived_, regardless of whether its for
>> transitional technologies.
>
> hrm, I don't think the prior efficient utilization requirements were
> waved.

You had two longstanding rules for additional allocations:
demonstrated need and efficient utilization. With the proposal you
have only one: demonstrated need. Spin it however you want, this
proposal waives the efficient utilization requirements for additional
IPv6 allocations.

I said it at the mic to some applause and I'll say it again here:
These early phase IPv6 allocations *should* be weighed heavily on
demonstrated need and lightly if at all on competent prior use. We
need more operational experience before we truly understand what our
IPv6 addressing needs are.

But let's be honest about it. We're talking about temporarily waiving
the efficient use rule. With good reason.


In that context, it's just as obvious that we need some hard limits so
that in our inexperience we don't go hog wild and waste resources left
and right. As expressed in the current draft of 2010-12, the upper
bound on allocations is a fraud. It appears to exist but a close
reading shows that it's toothless, easily circumvented, a bald faced
lie.

I'm willing to see a rule waived with such obviously good cause, but
not when you try to lie to me about it. So please: fix the lie in the
current draft of 2010-12 before you ask the board to ratify it.

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