Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

[Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>]

On Apr 13, 2006, at 5:58 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On 13-apr-2006, at 23:38, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > Apologies for the circuitous, tangled path of forwarding below. I  
> > wasn't in the meeting, so I can't comment on the support that  
> > Thomas describes.
>
> > If end-site PI assignments for anybody who wants to multi-home  
> > come to pass at ARIN, and if the other RIRs follow suit, then  
> > there would seem to be a limited opportunity for future deployment  
> > of shim6 (or, at least, substantially reduced demand for it).
>
> > There are still the basement multi-homers who prefer not to become  
> > RIR members, of course :-)
>
> Now obviously the IESG has in the past felt that multi6 and shim6  
> work was valuable. Although fewer people qualify under this policy  
> (you need to qualify for an IPv4 block and the smallest ones that  
> ARIN gives out are /20s so few people do, AFAIK) than would be able  
> to use shim6, I think it's safe to say that with policies like

While I don't think that there is a last call version yet,
2005-1 basically extends the 2002-3 micro-assignment policy to IPv6,  
and for that you have to
be multihomed and justify a /22.

Regards
Marshall


> this in place shim6 will be dead in the water. Pursuing both seems  
> a big waste of time. So I suggest that the IESG either:
>
> 1. Tells ARIN that this policy is incompatible with work inside the  
> IETF so it shouldn't be adopted, or
>
> 2. Conclude shim6.
>
> Iljitsch