[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

cb.list6 cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 7 14:11:15 EDT 2013


On Apr 7, 2013 11:04 AM, "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:30 AM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Generally speaking we need to move away from conservation as goal for
both ipv4 and ipv6
>>
>> Structurally there is no need in v6 and the market will force it in v4
>>
>> conservation at the rir level creates costly externalities in routing
and other areas such as system design.
>>
>> Ripe is on the right track
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03
>
> CB -
>
> Could you be a little more specific with regards to whether you support
> "Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs"?  It would
> provide an option for ISPs who wish to be issued IPv6 allocations of
> /40, which is smaller than present policy allows.  The referenced RIPE
> policy proposal is with regards to IPv4 allocation policy, not IPv6, so
> it is hard to discern whether you support allowing ISPs to request a
> smaller allocation if they wish to.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>

Do not support.

I believe all allocations should be assigned at the /32 level and be
automatically coupled with ASN assignment.

The RIPE policy is too narrow, and unless someone beats me too it (please
do ), I will introduce a similar but more general idea to ARIN that applies
to v4 and v6.

Without a conservation and audit mandate, I believe the arin community
would benefit from smoother and more predictable interactions and business
process.

CB.

> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/90247db7/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list