[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

Jason Schiller jschiller at google.com
Wed Jun 5 12:04:01 EDT 2013


+1 to what Owen said or to put it another way...

This draft suggests both conservation and aggregation are conflicting goals
that need the appropriate balance.  The appropriate balance is not defined
here but a little guidance is given, and it is expected that current (and
future)
ARIN policy will consider this and attempt to strike
the appropriate balance.

It provides advice that specifics of the protocol such as the size address
number
space, or availability will influence where the proper balance is.
"...because the IPv6 number space is orders of magnitude larger than the
IPv4
number space, the scale tips away from efficient utilization towards
hierarchical
aggregation for IPv6 number resources."

The community has already decided that End Sites should get a minimum of an
IPv6 /48 as a direct allocation from ARIN, if they have a justified need
for PI space.

In other words a single IPv6 host, connected to a single IPv6 router with a
globally unique ASN and multi-homed to two providers is considered
sufficient justification of need for a PI IPv6 block, and thus  qualifies
the organization for a /48.

For ISP assignments to end-site /64 up to a /48 is supported, and /48 is
encouraged, and can be done with no utilization penalty.

I don't see a conflict here.

__Jason


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> >
> > For example:   Pay for quantity of resources.    Or:   demonstration
> > of meaningful plan to utilize resources.
> >
>
> Please explain to me how you distinguish between current "needs-basis"
> IPv6 policy and "demonstration of meaningful plan to utilize".
>
> > When we are talking about resources you might need in  5 years;  this
> > is not about "needs basis",  but  about  reasonable future
> > projections.
> >
>
> The term needs basis as applied to current IPv6 policy is basically that.
>
> While you can make the argument that it isn't technically "need", but
> rather
> "reasonable anticipation of need", it is what is in place today and what we
> tend to mean when we refer to "needs basis".
>
> > Characterizing  opponents as  "vocal minority  with an agenda"
> > in that manner is so disingenuous...
>
> I will point out that this particular claim has been made by both sides of
> this debate against the other.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130605/f702018f/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list