ARIN-PPML Message

[ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03

> Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> > Can you prepare a revised version? There has been so much
> > back and forth (some fairly tangential) that I am no longer
> > sure exactly what the new proposal will say.

> Add new subsection in section 6.5 of the NRPM:

>    6.5.8. Direct assignments to large/complex end sites

I agree with others about the "complex" wording not being
helpful. IMO, we are fine just changing this to:

    6.5.8. Direct assignments to large end sites

>      6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct assignment, an
>               organization must:

>        a) not be an IPv6 LIR; and
>        b) meet at least ONE of the following requirements:

>          1) Have an IPv4 assignment or allocation directly from an RIR,
>             the IANA or legacy registry; or

I have a hard time supporting giving owners of "legacy" IPv4
registrations automatic IPv6 space. This just perpetuates the "early
adopter" program (e.g., those that got big assignments prior to the
the RIRs, get similar treatment in IPv6).

Also, IMO, it's not enough to have "an IPv4 assignment or allocation
directly from an RIR"; there are different types of
assignments/allocations. We should restrict giving out IPv6 PI space
that satisfy specific criteria.

Indeed, I'm not sure why 1) is even needed. I think item 2) (that
follows) is a better justification and can subsume 1).

>          2) Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under
>             the IPv4 policy currently in effect; or

With some caveats, since not all allocations are the same (e.g.,
getting space for anycast, etc.)

>          3) Be currently multihomed using IPv6 connectivity to two
>             or more separate ARIN LIR's using at least one /48 assigned
>             to them by each LIR.

IMO, being multihomed in IPv4 should also be sufficient justification.
One argument I keep hearing is that "we're assigning PI space in IPv4
for multihoming, and the system is working". So let's try and leverage
that experience.

>        6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to large/multihomed end sites

>          Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria
>          are eligible to receive a direct assignment.  The minimum size
>          of the assignment is /48.  Organizations requesting a larger
>          assignment or a second (or more) assignment must provide
>          documentation justifying the need for additional subnets.

I suspect that /48 is too small, if we are aiming at the biggest end
sites. E.g., take sites that have O(100K) subnets. According the HD
ratio thresholds, that would correspond to (I think) a /44.

One thing that I would find helpful is if there is any data available
concerning sizes of organizations (in terms of
networks/devices/users). How many organizations have 100K subnets? Is
that number small enough that we can use it as a threshhold to give
everyone with 100K subnets a PI assignment?

Although the following is far from perfect, using number of employees
might be attractive in that it is information that is often publically
available, and gives a very rough indication of number of machines
(assume some multiple of machines/subnets per employee). But I recall
from previous discussions, people preferred more relevant criteria
like numbers of subnets.

>        6.5.8.3. Subsequent Assignment Size

>          Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
>          subnets is justified.  When possible assignments will be made
>          from an adjacent address block.

Perhaps specifically tie this back to the the HD ratio.

So, here is a revised strawman based on the comments above:

Add new subsection in section 6.5 of the NRPM:

   6.5.8. Direct assignments to large end sites

     6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization
              must:

       a) not be an IPv6 LIR;
       
       b) meet all of the following requirements:

         1) Qualify for an IPv4 direct assignment from ARIN under the
            IPv4 policy currently in effect [specifically, Section
            4.3, excluding microassignments. Note also that this means
            end site must qualify for a /22 if multihoming. Is this
            bar high enough?].
	    
         2) Be currently multihomed using IPv4 or IPv6 as defined in
            "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual Version 2005.1 -
            September 7, 2005"


	    [note: text referred to is:
	    
	    2.7. Multihomed

	    An organization is multihomed if it receives full-time
	    connectivity from more than one ISP and has one or more
	    routing prefixes announced by at least two of its upstream
	    ISPs. ]

       6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to large end sites

         Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment
         criteria given in Section 6.5.8.1 are eligible to receive a
         direct assignment.  The minimum size of the assignment is a
         /40. Larger assignments will be made when justified using the
         existing IPv6 applied HD ratio as given in Section 6.5.

	 Assignments will be made out of a specially designated
	 address block that indicates a direct assignment to an
	 endsite.

       6.5.8.3. Subsequent Assignment Size

         An organization may receive an additional assignment when it
         has grown to include enough distinct physical locations to
         justify the larger assignment. Where possible, the assignment
         will be made from an adjacent address block.

================================================================

So, what do people think of the above? An improvement? Still some
unacceptable points?

Questions relating to above:

1) How many direct /22 IPv4 assignments have been made to date? That
   is, how many organizations do we think would qualify? Are we
   talking a few thousand? tens of thousands? or?

Thomas