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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed May 16 08:34:48 EDT 2012

On 5/16/12, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 12:18 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Compare to the preemptive assignment approach:
>> 6.3.2. Uniqueness: pass
>> 6.3.3. Registration: pass
>> 6.3.4. Aggregation: pass
>> 6.3.5. Conservation: weak. Some waste of addresses will occur here,
>> though not especially worse than what occurs due to sparse allocation
>> in general.
>> 6.3.6. Fairness: potential long-term implications of IPv4 or AS
>> holders getting IPv6 addresses automatically while anybody new has to
>> pay.
>> 6.3.7. Minimized Overhead: very strong. Bulk process based on a
>> relatively simple database pull.
>> 6.3.8. Conflict: pass. Priority on aggregation is maintained.
> Er... I think that should read:
> 6.3.8 Conflict: fail: Aggregation is degraded to to probability of
> improperly sized allocations

Hi Owen,


1. Recent discussions about the need to loosen subsequent allocation
rules due to commonplace errors in initial IPv6 allocation choices
with the existing process,
2. Sparse allocation intended to allow modest resizing without
creating disjoint assignments, and
3. The recipient's ability to turn in the assignment when requesting a
replacement should it be evident in an up-front manner that the
assignment is not the right size

The foundation for a claim that preemptive assignment meaningfully
harms aggregation is most weak.

> Looks to me like the current process is the best of the three even without
> the above correction to your analysis.

Until you throw in the missing goal, the one we're discussing in this
thread: Until IPv6 use is ubiquitous, barriers to acquiring
technically needful IPv6 address assignments should be minimized to
the maximum extent practical. Personally, I'd rank that goal second
only to aggregation. Certainly it's far more important than 6.3.5:

ARIN policy on IPv6 assignment presents far fewer barriers than it did
four years ago, but reasonable analysis grades any resource request
from ARIN as "difficult." For IPv4, that's as it should be.
Conservation is IPv4's leading goal, so there is supposed to be major
back pressure to careless consumption. For IPv6, it's a needless
barrier to adoption.

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list