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

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 15, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Tony Hain wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>> If you can get 6rd to fit in  single /16, then, perhaps we 
>> could consider allowing it to be permanent.
> 
> That is called 6to4... ;)   Seriously, if every ISP would just operate a
> 6to4 relay announcing 2002:????::/24-40 matching their IPv4 prefix length on
> the IPv6 side, we wouldn't need 6rd (yes this violates the stupid one-liner
> in the RFC). The number of prefixes in the IPv6 routing table would be no
> different than if 6rd is put into a special block intended to be turned off
> years from now. The real 'value' of 6rd over 6to4 is that an ISP can have a
> single prefix covering both their 6rd and dual-stack customers, and the
> outside world doesn't need to know. The downside is that each RIR gets to
> stand in the way of 6rd deployments with an enormous wall of FUD about
> burning through 4B instances the size of the IPv4 Internet in less than 20
> years. 
> 
> Warning simple math --->  ~ 2/3 of the population of the planet could run
> their own 6rd /32 and there would still be addresses in the pool ... 
> 
>> However, if ~3,000 ARIN members deploy 6rd /24s, then, you're 
>> talking about the vast majority of an entire /12 just in the 
>> ARIN region.
> 
> And the problem with that is??? There are more /12's to distribute, so if
> every RIR dedicates a /12 to 6rd in addition to their existing /12, IANA
> still has 502 in the first /3. 
> 
> Tony
> 

No problem at /24. That's what we approved in the AC.

However, the point is that only provides for /56s at the end-user side
of the 6rd equation. If you want /48s, that becomes the majority of a /8
instead of a /12 and I think that's pushing the envelope.

Owen