I would oppose such a proposal. It’s convoluted, the sunset is unpredictable at best and the artificial limitation or one /48 regardless of the number of sites is, IMHO, absurd.
You can’t claim defense of the routing table, because a /48 and a /32 occupy the same number of routing slots. Owen > On Feb 18, 2015, at 1:28 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:59 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think that for now any end user willing to pay ARIN's fee >> should qualify for a /48 regardless of any technical criteria. > > This got me thinking. Who would choke on a policy proposal which > looked like the following? > > Add to section 6.5.8.1: > > (f) All end user organizations who do not qualify for addresses under > (a) through (e) qualify for a direct assignment of exactly one /48. > This section (f) shall expire upon determination by ARIN staff that > IPv6 has become the "dominant" network protocol on the public > Internet. The expiry shall not impact prior assignments made under > this section. > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
