[arin-ppml] I Oppose 2010-9: IPv6 for 6rd as written.

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Second, the proposal needs major wordsmithing. The language is too
>> opaque, making it difficult to tease out how ARIN is supposed to
>> evaluate IPv6 applications justified by an intent to use 6rd. It
>> should be rewritten with phrases like "ARIN shall," using far fewer
>> words per paragraph and with the addition of short headings for
>> clarity.
>>
> I can't disagree with this, and, I would support future policy to improve
> the situation. However, I think the language here is adequate to at least
> start meeting the needs of providers that want to deploy 6rd and I think
> it is more important that ARIN not pose an impediment to this process,
> especially between now and IANA depletion than to have ideal
> wording.

Owen,

Although I'm still not sure I'd support it, it ought to be easy enough
to rewrite the proposal as clear policy adding a couple simple
safeguards:

"Internet Service Providers holding at least two discontiguous ARIN
IPv4 allocations shall be eligible to receive up to a /27 IPv6
allocation for the purpose of deploying RFC 5969 6RD by mapping the
32-bit IPv4 address into a /28 and hanging a /60 off each potential
6rd decapsulator."

Boom. Done.

The /27 allows native IPv6 to exist alongside the 6rd /28 within the
same contiguous allocation.

Text is now limited to ISPs, not "everybody."

Now limited to ISPs holding at least two ARIN allocations. Any
registrant with just one address block can employ 6rd consuming far
less than 32 bits just as easily as they can use 32 bits.

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