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

["Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>]

Iljitsch,

With the exception of micro-allocations, the minimum allocation from ARIN
to an endsite in ipv4 is a /22 if you are multihomed, and a /20 if you are
not multihomed.  (Arin number resource policy manual 4.3.2)

___Jason

  (on behalf of Heather - MCI IP management)

==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller@uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 23:58:27 +0200
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
> To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
> Cc: shim6-wg <shim6@psg.com>, iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
> 
> 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 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
>