[ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03
In general, I like the direction Thomas is heading in... (giving
PI to the largest sites and trying not to give out small blocks simply
because someone says they need multi homing, etc...)
I would change refferances to 'end site', in favor of the term 'end
orginization' (which would imply these cant' be re-assigned to other
orginizations, but little else implyed in the meaning)
In my mind, the only real sticky point is in deciding what exactly
defines a originization as being 'large' enough to get a PI assignment.
I do think that a /40 is about the smallest sized block that I would like
to see given out as IPv6 PI space at this time. Just how you define who is
large enough to justify such a assignment I do not know.
I personaly would rather see unique street addresses be considered
as justification for space, more so then number of employees... but
perhaps either or... or some combination of both, etc...
Anyway, I do really think Thomas is on the right track with his
most recent comments and/or proposal.
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> 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
>> 18.104.22.168. 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.
>> 22.214.171.124. 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.
>> 126.96.36.199. 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
> 188.8.131.52. To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization
> 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. ]
> 184.108.40.206. Direct assignment size to large end sites
> Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment
> criteria given in Section 220.127.116.11 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
> 18.104.22.168. 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?
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net