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

cb.list6 cb.list6 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 7 22:06:25 EDT 2013


On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Steven Ryerse wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Mathew and CB.  We do need to move away from conservation
at the RIR level as a goal for both ipv4 and ipv6.  Ripe is definitely on
the right track with
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03and I strongly
support that.  The same changes should happen for the Arin
RIR.
>
>
> i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the time for
needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the market is
now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the aggregation
level of that space into routing table entries.
>

Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as arin. In fact, the
whole thing is a popularity contest.

> so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely unmade as
yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as stewards of a
public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050 which requires
recipients of these public resources to justify their need, no matter
whether these resources are coming from a central pool or a private
transfer.
>
> paul

Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?

I noticed this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01

As it stands, speaking from experience, the justification story in v4 and
v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact and negatively
impacts system design.

Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair  policy?  From what I read in
2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy and 2050 is dead.

Do you read it differently?

CB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/8d011e7d/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list