[ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Fri Feb 10 10:11:47 EST 2006
On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com>
>> 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).
>
> I would normally agree with this, but there are folks with legacy PI
> assignments that cannot qualify for a _new_ PI block from the RIRs.
>
>>> 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.
>
> That'll create a land rush for sure, as everyone who currently has
> a v4
> block comes running for their v6 block _without actually deploying
> v6_.
> Part of this policy is to accelerate the actual deployment of v6 in
> the ARIN
> region, not just hand out space to orgs.
>
>> 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?
>
> I've worked with a large fraction of the Fortune 50, and few have a
> need for
> O(100k) subnets. For those that have a justifiable need for more
> than a
> /48, the proposal allows that.
>
>> 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.
>
> The number of employees is even less relevant, IMHO, than the
> number of
> physical locations.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I have no argument with a HD ration tie-in, but then we'd need some
> debate
> on what the correct ratio is. I don't think the number for ISPs is
> necessarily correct for end sites.
>
>> 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"
>
> You don't need to call out the reference, since it's obvious.
>
>> 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.
>
> Whoa, now you're saying all end sites deserve at least a /40? Or
> is that a
> typo?
>
>> 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.
>
> Now only growth in the number of physical locations justifies
> additional
> assignments? There may be other legitimate reasons for an org to
> come back
> for more addresses.
>
>> So, what do people think of the above? An improvement? Still some
>> unacceptable points?
>
> I think it's a step backwards; objections noted above.
>
>> 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?
>
> Well, right off the bat I'd say it's on the order of the number of
> assigned
> ASNs. How many new folks will go get an ASN to take advantage of this
> policy is up for debate...
>
I think that is way off. I was told a while ago it was
a few dozen at most 2002-3 requests, so that's 3 orders of magnitude
less than the number of ASN. I am sure that
ARIN can provide an updated number.
It is true that most new ASN announced into BGP are from multi-homed
end sites. Here, for example, are the
new announcements with ARIN handles for the month of February so far
as seen from here :
11885 CSI [PP469-ARIN]
{RONKONKOMA, NY, US} CAMP SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL
17050 MCVP-AS-NO [BMI29-ARIN]
{Boston, MA, US} TAC Partners, Inc.
22388 TRANSPAC [CR721-ARIN]
{Bloomington, IN, US} Indiana University
17372 BMO-TOR2 [AU155-ARIN]
{Scarborough, ON, CA} Bank of Montreal
33676 BIVAPR-AS [PM380-ARIN]
{Santurce, PR, PR} WHTV Broadcasting Corp.
14572 SUAVEMENTE [SNO26-ARIN]
{Chula Vista, CA, US} Suavemente, INC.
14600 MXL-PROD [NOC1845-ARIN]
{Englewood, CO, US} MX Logic, Inc.
16936 TECHNORATI [TTC1-ARIN]
{San Francisco, CA, US} Technorati, Inc.
32287 SOLANA-CITIPLEX [PATRI6-ARIN]
{New York, NY, US} Citigroup
19666 HENDERSONBROTHERS-MAIN [ECO22-ARIN]
{Pittsburgh, PA, US} Henderson Brothers, Inc.
10851 NREP [ON2-ARIN]
{Nashville, TN, US} Nashville Regional Exchange Point
10659 SEQUENT-CS2 [NOCTE3-ARIN]
{Research Triangle Park, NC, US} IBM
26388 RLMNY [JO400-ARIN]
{NEW YORK, NY, US} ROBINSON LERER AND MONTGOMERY
21955 TALECRIS [TS1177-ARIN]
{RTP, NC, US} Talecris Biotherapeutics
(as seen as part of the multicast status page effort, http://
www.multicasttech.com/status )
How many of these are truly multihomed is not clear, but I do not
think that many are asking for micro-assignments.
I do think that the ones that do need them, should be able to get
them. I think that, within some loose filters, they
can be trusted to make that determination.
I do not know if many people are thinking in IPv4 or IPv6, but it
seems clear to me that a lot are
thinking in terms of 1999. Those days are gone.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list