[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
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
> 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.
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
> John Curran
> President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML