[arin-ppml] 4.10 transition/deployment /10 Was: Re: Transition /10
farmer at umn.edu
Wed Oct 21 13:08:47 EDT 2015
On 10/21/15 07:27 , Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Watching the
> debate over the RIPE last /8 policy, it simple convinced me we were
> _wrong_. And having networks go to RIPE for their last v4 allocation
> seems to be at odds with "out of region" use, which in itself is of
> questionable utility.
So, how does ARIN handing out /24s, prevent or even discourage someone
from going to RIPE for a /22? It seems likely to me they would just go
to both ARIN and RIPE and get the /24 and the /22 if they are available
> The RIPE region could adjust their policies
> accordingly, but they seemed to have gotten it mostly right. Making new
> entry into the market easy-peasy without technical restrictions other
> than you need to use it seems more reasonable that what we have.
Conceptually, I've always liked and even preferred the RIPE and APNIC
last /8 policy, but we couldn't agree on it in 2009, and our options are
now limited. If you have a specific suggestion based on the realities
of today, I'm listening.
> impact to v6 deployment overall is probably zero. And finally, it at
> least addresses the inequity that new entrants will have with those of
> us who are policy expects and know how to use the secret decoder ring
> e.g. "assigned" "provisioned" "get a new ORG ID" etc.
It's not about incentivizing IPv6 deployment, is about ensuring entities
a can get some IPv4 for the deployment of IPv6 for many years come. If
you have a suggestion to simplify access by new entrants I'm willing to
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML