Bill, Does the following text:
"By having a network that has at least 13 sites within one contiguous network, or;" sufficiently address your concerns about routing table slots? All, The reality is ALL IPv6 policy is around routing table slots whether we admit it or not. If we had TCAMS with trillions of slots the only policy around IPv6 would be not whether you can get a direct assignment, only the size of it. The flip side of that is if you don't allow small and midsized organizations to get direct assignments, we will get ZERO traction on IPv6. Even at the 13 site threshold, renumbering 13 sites is an ENORMOUS undertaking, especially if there are extranets involved, where coordination is difficult and you have little ability to motivate the other party. Imagine a scenario where a company has 10 VPN tunnels to suppliers, partners, etc. Imagine it takes 2 months per tunnel to renumber by the time you've gone through the change control process on both sides, etc. That could be nearly two years of fairly concerted effort, and none of those are at all unrealistic numbers. You quickly start to see the problem with businesses not being able to control their own destiny with respect to addressing. No company will accept that kind of risk. So we're left with two options. We can let everyone do ULA + NAT66 (which I hope we can agree is detrimental to the IPv6 Internet as a whole), or we give all but the very smallest of organizations the ability to get a direct assignment should they choose. GTG -----Original Message----- From: William Herrin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February-17-15 1:06 PM To: Gary T. Giesen Cc: David Huberman; John Curran; [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66) On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Gary T. Giesen <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't necessarily disagree. Just trying to minimize the business > risk of having to have virtually all of my customers qualify under e) > with the risk of rejection because my use case isn't specifically spelled out. Hi Gary, When your use case is within an inch or two the one we'd like to prevent, 50 new routes in the table, each serving 10 people on average, business risk kinda goes with the territory. 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.
