ARIN IPv6 Policy

[Brian E Carpenter]

Steve is correct. If you remember, in the ARIN meeting last Sept. where I
spoke, the question of how allocation is done above the /48 boundary
was very briefly mentioned as something that is *not* addressed by the
IAB/IESG draft under discussion. That's not to say it isn't important,
but it's a separate question from recommending /48 allocations for sites.

  Brian

Steve Deering wrote:
> 
> Scott,
> 
> As an IAB member, I can report that there has been NO "intense discussion",
> or discussion of any sort, in the IAB about the "/48" recommendation since
> that draft was submitted.  I also haven't heard of any such discussion in
> the IESG, but I suppose it's possible.  My sense is that everyone in the
> IAB & IESG who cares is content with the recommendation, and just
> waiting to see if ARIN is going to go along with it.
> 
> There *is* active discussion in the IPv6 Directorate about the nature
> of the high-order (i.e., left-hand side) structure of the IPv6 address
> (e.g., removing the fixed field width from the TLA field as being
> inappropriate for an "architecture" spec, given that we don't want
> routers to hard code knowledge of such boundaries).  But in the
> Directorate as well, there is no controversy about the /48 recommendation
> for allocations to subscribers.
> 
> My perception is that the /48 recommendation *is* a "done deal" in the
> IETF, but perhaps I'm not hearing the "rumbles" you are.  Can you be
> more specific about what you have heard and/or from whom you have heard
> otherwise?
> 
> Steve
> 
> At 10:33 AM -0500 3/12/01, J. Scott Marcus wrote:
> >At 08:12 03/12/2001 -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > >
> > >> After a discussion concerning the IAB/IESG recommendation for IPv6
> > >> address space allocation on the ARIN IPv6 WG mail list, the ARIN
> > >> Advisory Council is proposing that the following be the ARIN policy
> > >> concerning IPv6 address space allocation:
> > >
> > >> "ARIN will allocate IPv6 addresses according to the Internet Draft
> > >>    <http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iesg-ipv6-addressing
> > >>    -recommendations-00.txt>.
> > >> This policy will be regularly reviewed and modified subject to
> > >> operational experience."
> > >
> > >
> > >Global Crossing supports the ARIN AC's policy recommendation.
> >
> >
> >
> >Speaking only for myself...
> >
> >
> >
> >I have recently heard rumbles that this IPv6 allocation policy is STILL a
> >topic of intense discussion within the IESG/IAB -- not at all the done deal
> >that many of us might have assumed.
> >
> >With that in mind, I would respectfully suggest that we (ARIN) consider
> >deferring action to give things time to sort themselves out.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >- Scott