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

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Thu Oct 14 05:23:00 EDT 2010

> If you don't like /56, wait until you have tasted /64. That is what is
> coming to North America if ISPs in the ARIN region are forced to deploy
> within a /32 here. 

ISPs in the ARIN region have never been forced to deploy within a /32.
In fact, the original ARIN IPv6 allocation policy was identical to the
IPv6 policy in every other region. None of the ARIN changes have ever 
restricted ISPs to a /32 allocation. That is merely the MINIMUM 
allocation to an ISP.

> On one hand, you accept that some ISPs are stuck and need 6rd to deploy
> IPv6 now, but on the other hand you are saying that the community
> (i.e.,
> the ISP's competitors) have the power to rip their IPv6 deployment out
> from under them at any time. 

I would hope that the ARIN Board of Trustees would never accept language
that allows the allocation to be ripped from under an ISP on short

Personally I would like to see the temporary 6RD policy have a fixed
term which would be the minimum number of years followed by a regular
review term (perhaps every two years) and then a notice period of
two years to return the allocation. And all ISPs would get notice
at the same time.

> 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.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list