[arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at giesen.me> wrote:
> The IPv4 policy has no multihoming requirement, and a vastly lower minimum
> host count. While the IPv6 policy does try to address some of the economic
> pain of renumbering, I don't think it goes far enough.

Hi Gary,

This is because we're still trying to minimize the number of routes
that are announced to the global IPv6 table. It's actually rather
expensive for the folks who have to carry those routes and if you
can't afford two ISPs then you're not putting the money into the
system that covers that cost.

Also, the nagging little detail that a single-homed entity loses no
raw capability by keeping their prefix out of the core. Some later
renumbering hassle, sure, but no actual capabilities.


> Now I suppose the simple answer is for my customer is to go get an IPv4 /24
>  (which would automatically qualify them for an IPv6 allocation under 6.5.8.1
> (a)), but I think that's a waste of time and resources when:

Yeah, the folks who pushed that one through weren't paying close
attention to the overall policy impact. Their mistake is your gain; my
advice is to game it while you can.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>