[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement)

Izaac izaac at setec.org
Sat May 12 22:29:20 EDT 2012

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 01:31:29PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> As I recall there were three main reasons why not:
> 1. Although we insist folks need to deploy IPv6, we couldn't possibly
> assign them addresses until they publicly state the truth of our
> belief by making a paid application.

When I say things like "encourage," the waiving or reduction of fees
in certain circumstances seems to apply.  Unless of course one of the
armchair economists like to argue the efficacy of subsidy and efficacy
to affect the behavior of applicants?

> 2. The preemptive block might possibly not be the right size, leading
> to a request for a second block and an entire extra route in the IPv6
> BGP table. Never mind that it turns out somewhere between many and
> most of the initial IPv6 allocations have ended up being the wrong
> size anyway. As if the possibility that wouldn't happen had every been
> more than wishful thinking.

In my opinion, if you can't fit your world into a /56 or /48, you're
doing something very, very wrong.  But hey, I get that stuff happens.

> 3. Per the IETF, all IPv6 end users are supposed to get IPs from their
> ISP, even though the technical basis for that plan has been thoroughly
> discredited for more or less every situation in which a registrant
> qualifies to hold ARIN IPv4 addresses.

So, in summary, all three arguments are weaker than a quadriplegic
poodle.  Gotcha.  Thanks.

. ___ ___  .   .  ___
.  \    /  |\  |\ \
.  _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list