ARIN-PPML Message

[ppml] 2005-1 status

Thus spake "Martin Hannigan" <hannigan at renesys.com>
> At 03:38 PM 2/4/2006, you wrote:
>>Sounds logical.  At least one link needs to be in ARIN's region for an
>>assignment to make sense; where the rest of the links go shouldn't matter.
>
> I always thought it was location of the entity. Signing contracts
> in foreign countries is expensive vis-a-vis, for one thing. I always
> felt that ARIN was serving areas, they do say region which to me implies
> area, vs. circuit landings.

Is there any policy for this on the IPv4 side?  I didn't notice any, and I 
think it should be a goal to make IPv6 policy as consistent with IPv4 policy 
as possible, less the obvious matter of assignment sizes.

>>I'd like to think tunnels wouldn't qualify as "full-time connectivity", 
>>but
>>it's not clear.  When this definition was adopted it probably wasn't
>>considered that someone might get IP service via a tunnel (over what?).
>>We probably need to update this if we wish to exclude tunnels, or at
>>least tunnels that aren't to the same ISP that provides the physical link.
>
> I'd advocate that tunnels do qualify as full time connectivity if you can
> go to and from the site via IPv6. The links themselves are simple
> electrical interfaces that know nothing about what is riding on them.

And, as pointed out earlier, this opens up the possibility that every home 
user that hits up a couple free tunnel brokers can get PI space.  A policy 
with a hole like that will never pass because it will lead to a meltdown of 
the DFZ or wholesale filtering of PI space if there's even minor adoption.

>>Interestingly, an org with two locations but no connection between
>>them may qualify as multihomed, even if it only has one ISP at each
>>location.  Also, an org with one physical connection may qualify as
>>multihomed if it has atunnel to a second ISP.  Not good.
>
> The root server system does exactly this.

We have explicit microallocation policies for folks like that.

>>Note that all of these holes apply just as much to IPv4 if they also apply
>>to IPv6.  We either need an update to 2.7 or an official interpretation of
>>"full-time connectivity", but IMHO they should no be considered potential
>>flaws in this proposal specifically.
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> You are right, but I think we should try and focus on 2005-1 for now.
> That was pretty overwhelming. :-)

Unfortunately, as much as I like the current proposal, I think we need one 
of the two actions I listed above before it has any hope of getting past the 
folks running the DFZ.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin