On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Gary T. Giesen <[email protected]> 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 ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
