RE: [GLOBAL-V6] PI space under IPv6

["Ray Plzak" <plzak@arin.net>]

While this discussion on this thread is very interesting, I am wondering if
anyone is going to propose a policy in any of the regional policy fora? The
policies that are in place weren't made up by a few people but have been
arrived at after many people have discussed them on mail lists and at public
policy meetings. For those who are critical of the current policies in the
various regions, I suggest that they propose an alternative policy in these
fora.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: global-v6-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:global-v6-
> bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 5:35 AM
> To: global-v6@lists.apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] PI space under IPv6
> 
> On 2007-01-17 17:42, Gert Doering wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 05:38:14PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >>> Calling it "PI" or calling it "we open the policy so everybody can get
> >>> their own independent address block" is technically pretty much the
> >>> same.
> >> Yes, technically it's called the swamp.
> >
> > No.  The swamp is "everybody just gets address space, without clear
> > rules who and why".
> 
> Why do RIR's then allocated multiple blocks to 1 single company!?
> (below a 'random' but rather good example')
> 
> 2001:588::/32
> 2001:600::/32
> 2001:4218::/32
> 2001:4440::/32
> 2001:4441::/32
> 2001:4442::/32
> 2001:408::/32
> 2001:506::/48
> 2404:e0::/28
> 2600:800::/27
> 
> That is 1 company that got these blocks. Yes they are a pretty huge
> company (and most likely they might split at some point causing
> deaggregation anyway if they where allocated one block). But those
> 2001:444x::/32 is completely silly on APNIC's part.
> 
> What use does it have to call that "PA" when the RIR already breaks it up
> ?
> 
> Especially the ARIN "Micro-allocations for internal infrastructure" is
> funny in this context, why the *PEEP* does one need a single /48 when
> one has 3x /28 and 7x /32 available?
> 
> 
> These allocation procedures do match what I say about all of it: Give
> address space to organizations that need it. It does FAR from conserve
> routing table slots though, which indeed is not something the RIR's are
> involved with, but they should of course try a little IMHO.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen