인물 프로필
인물Stephen Sprunk은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.
확인 가능한 근거는 역할: Affiliated participant at ARIN XX (2007) (Polycom, Inc.)를 다룹니다.
Sprunk, Stephen Polycom, Inc.
public people profile
I’m Stephen Sprunk, Polycom.
public people profile
From: "Stephen Sprunk" < stephen at sprunk.org >
public people profile
마지막 업데이트: 2026-09-26
출처 정보
관점 일관성: 일관성
The February and April comments support PI IPv6 as a workable response to end-site multihoming needs, while acknowledging routing tradeoffs. The employer's carrier and pricing prerequisites describe when deployment could happen; they do not withdraw support for the policy.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
평가: 일관성 · The February and April comments support PI IPv6 as a workable response to end-site multihoming needs, while acknowledging routing tradeoffs. The employer's carrier and pricing prerequisites describe when deployment could happen; they do not withdraw support for the policy.
조건: Support concerns a practical compromise, not a claim that every draft is ideal. · Statements about routing growth and revocation are the participant's expectations at the time, not verified outcomes or legal findings.
we need a true PI policy to put a stop to this nonsense.
Since multihoming is a fundamental business requirement for enterprises and PI is the only way to make multihoming work today, either enterprises get PIv6 or v6 doesn't happen.
My employer will apply for a prefix as soon as we have at least two carriers that offer (a) native IPv4 and IPv6 on the same pipe, (b) at the same price as IPv4-only connectivity, and (c) agree to accept a PI route.
one route/ASN is a lot cheaper to build routers for than today's nearly 10 routes/ASN.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
평가: 일관성 · Support for either end-site PI proposal follows the same objective: accommodate legitimate enterprise needs through a dedicated policy and separate block while containing routing consequences. The February and April arguments remain compatible.
조건: This is consistency of the stated objective and safeguards, not equivalence of all draft provisions.
how about you support 2005-1 or 2006-4 so that we can limit the potential for problems (and segregate them into a different block)?
2005-1 is an attempt to find a compromise that's acceptable to both sides.
2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
평가: 일관성 · Concern about an IPv6 land rush is compatible with supporting PI eligibility that deliberately keeps the existing bar. Both arguments seek access for demonstrated needs without an uncontrolled opening of allocation.
조건: The later allocation comment is not a clear vote on all of 2006-7. · The comparison addresses the stated safeguard, not every possible applicant.
opening the policies too wide may create a land-rush effect
The bar is the same, and that was deliberate.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The comment asks for clearer ASN notation and terminology, including room for a future IETF choice. These are implementation objections and questions, not opposition to four-byte ASN expansion. There is no later contribution here with which to test a change.
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The comment asks for clearer ASN notation and terminology, including room for a future IETF choice. These are implementation objections and questions, not opposition to four-byte ASN expansion. There is no later contribution here with which to test a change.
조건: Only one dated comment is included. · Quoted names and signature quotations do not supply additional policy views.
IMHO, the proposal should be revised to eliminate the separator but leave enough flexibility for one to be used if the IETF specifies one in the future -- or alternate display formats such as hex.
관점 일관성: 일관성
The two February replies favor a real end-site PI policy and a separate block rather than forcing end users through ISP allocation rules. Asking for either 2005-1 or 2006-4 and questioning an unnecessarily large minimum preserves that objective rather than reversing it.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
평가: 일관성 · The two February replies favor a real end-site PI policy and a separate block rather than forcing end users through ISP allocation rules. Asking for either 2005-1 or 2006-4 and questioning an unnecessarily large minimum preserves that objective rather than reversing it.
조건: The comparison spans two adjacent days, not the participant's entire policy history. · Support for an end-site policy does not endorse every eligibility or sizing clause.
If end users are going to be getting space, though, we should provide a more appropriate policy for them (and assign from a dedicated block).
how about you support 2005-1 or 2006-4 so that we can limit the potential for problems (and segregate them into a different block)?
if a /48 meets 95% of applicants' needs, why make the minimum any larger?
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
평가: 일관성 · Support for either end-site PI proposal follows the same objective: accommodate legitimate enterprise needs through a dedicated policy and separate block while containing routing consequences. The February and April arguments remain compatible.
조건: This is consistency of the stated objective and safeguards, not equivalence of all draft provisions.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The reply defends safeguards against an IPv6 land rush and unequal treatment of early and late applicants. It does not clearly endorse or reject every provision of the allocation proposal.
2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The reply defends safeguards against an IPv6 land rush and unequal treatment of early and late applicants. It does not clearly endorse or reject every provision of the allocation proposal.
조건: The objection in the quoted correspondent's message is not attributed to Sprunk. · A single discussion of allocation safeguards is not a record of changing votes.
opening the policies too wide may create a land-rush effect and we'll be forced to drastically alter policies in the future, creating a situation where early adopters get things that later adopters cannot.
2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
평가: 일관성 · Concern about an IPv6 land rush is compatible with supporting PI eligibility that deliberately keeps the existing bar. Both arguments seek access for demonstrated needs without an uncontrolled opening of allocation.
조건: The later allocation comment is not a clear vote on all of 2006-7. · The comparison addresses the stated safeguard, not every possible applicant.
opening the policies too wide may create a land-rush effect
The bar is the same, and that was deliberate.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The defense of automated email requests establishes an operational need to retain that channel. It does not identify a preference for PGP or establish a stable position on reinstating that authentication method.
2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The defense of automated email requests establishes an operational need to retain that channel. It does not identify a preference for PGP or establish a stable position on reinstating that authentication method.
조건: The shared email discussion also concerns Mail-From and X.509. · Channel continuity and authentication-method approval are different questions.
larger ISPs may be sending in several hundred per day as customers are turned on and off, and they have automated systems that generate the templates and send them off
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The reply explains why large ISPs still depend on automated email templates. That fact does not establish support for Mail-From authentication or a comparison with a later method-specific view.
2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The reply explains why large ISPs still depend on automated email templates. That fact does not establish support for Mail-From authentication or a comparison with a later method-specific view.
조건: No explicit Mail-From endorsement appears in the retained contribution.
the email mechanism has been in place for over a decade and won't go away any time soon.
2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method · 2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The one email explains a shared automation requirement but makes no comparison between X.509 and Mail-From. Its association with both policies cannot establish consistent endorsement of both methods.
조건: A common transport requirement does not choose an authentication method.
they have automated systems that generate the templates and send them off
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The contribution defends email-based automation without choosing X.509 over other authentication mechanisms. No method-specific consistency judgment is supported.
2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The contribution defends email-based automation without choosing X.509 over other authentication mechanisms. No method-specific consistency judgment is supported.
조건: The same contribution is associated with three authentication proposals, not three independent votes.
Ideally one would define some sort of RPC mechanism to do this without resorting to email, but the email mechanism has been in place for over a decade and won't go away any time soon.
2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method · 2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The one email explains a shared automation requirement but makes no comparison between X.509 and Mail-From. Its association with both policies cannot establish consistent endorsement of both methods.
조건: A common transport requirement does not choose an authentication method.
they have automated systems that generate the templates and send them off
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The reply supports issuing one larger block instead of several smaller ones to meet an unusual surge in demand. It gives a clear contemporary position, but only one contribution is available.
2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The reply supports issuing one larger block instead of several smaller ones to meet an unusual surge in demand. It gives a clear contemporary position, but only one contribution is available.
조건: The sudden-demand exception is not approval of unrestricted allocation. · No later implementation result or changed position is shown.
this change merely allows ARIN to issue a single larger block instead of many smaller blocks. That's a good thing.
a sudden burst of customer demand that blows up the projections you've been basing your occasional requests on.
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The available reply argues that a constrained PI IPv6 policy is preferable to having none. It does not independently establish a sustained position on every version of this linked proposal.
ARIN-prop-10: PI assignments for V6
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The available reply argues that a constrained PI IPv6 policy is preferable to having none. It does not independently establish a sustained position on every version of this linked proposal.
조건: The same April reply also appears under related PI proposals; it is one statement.
Consensus is that 2005-1 is less bad than having no PIv6 policy at all.
If each AS gets a single PIv6 prefix, is that really a swamp?
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The linked contribution defends the practical case for 2005-1. It supports the broader PI objective but supplies no separate sequence of positions on the proposal linked here.
ARIN-prop-18: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The linked contribution defends the practical case for 2005-1. It supports the broader PI objective but supplies no separate sequence of positions on the proposal linked here.
조건: One contribution is reused across related PI policy associations. · Its explicit discussion of 2005-1 must not be expanded into approval of every distinct draft.
Consensus is that 2005-1 is less bad than having no PIv6 policy at all.
how about you support 2005-1 or 2006-4 so that we can limit the potential for problems (and segregate them into a different block)?
2005-1 is an attempt to find a compromise that's acceptable to both sides.
