[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Stephen Sprunk
>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:24 PM
>To: Steve Bertrand; bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
>Cc: ARIN PPML
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm
>
>
>Thus spake "Steve Bertrand" <steveb at eagle.ca>
>>> i suspect the hoarding will be an unfortunate sideeffect of the /32
>>> v6 allocation size.  sort of like the hoarding done by those
>>> unfortunate souls who only needed 6 v4 addresses but were
>>> "forced" to take more (a /24 if they were lucky, a /20 if they were
>>> not) by their address registry.
>>>
>>> its not exactly fair to force people to take more addresses than
>>> they need and then berate them for hoarding... is it?
>>
>> Interesting insight.
>
>IMHO, a misapplication of the term "hoarding", which I interpreted
>as being
>a sarcastic comment, not an actual accusation.  (Michael: If I read that
>wrong, please let me know so I can flame you.)
>
>> I, operating a small ISP as others here, directly requested a smaller
>> than /32 IPv6 block, because I knew that we would almost certainly
>> never need it, but it was forced upon us anyway.
>
>Right.  One of the goals in IPv6 policy is minimizing routes in
>the DFZ, and
>it's easiest to do that if everyone (or nearly everyone) has the same size
>blocks because it's easy to filter deaggregates that way.  While a /32 is
>way, way too large for most LIRs, it's large enough that nearly all LIRs
>will fit in it, it's a convenient number, and everyone can filter anything
>longer than /32 (except in the PIv6 block, where it's /48) with impunity
>unless they specifically want deaggregates.  Since we have absolutely no
>clue how to route the half a billion /32s in 2000::/3, there is no
>reason to
>give out longer prefixes -- and plenty of reasons not to.
>
>> Receiving such a large address space makes it very difficult in the
>> justification side of things (some would have no choice but to lie on
>> the application, just to get ANY IPv6 addresses). I only received the
>> allocation because of the designation that I have (ISP). Yes, we
>> provide Internet services, but in terms of size, I'm no where near
>> even that of 'enterprise'. I'll never use the IP's, so apparently,
>> I'll be hoarding them.
>
>I wouldn't use that term.  If you have the smallest allocation/assignment
>that you need or that can be issued, you can't be "hoarding", IMHO.
>
>> In regard to Bill's second statement above, it sounds like a lot of
>> people are doing exactly this (damning them as hoarders) for legacy
>> IPv4 holders...doesn't it? When push comes to shove, why would one
>> give up what was given to them, especially when they vehemently tried
>> to state it wasn't warranted/needed. (I know this is going OT, but an
>> opinion would be nice)
>
>I don't think anyone's faulting legacy folks for the inefficiencies of
>classful assignments.  What I see them being faulted for is that now, when
>VLSM and CIDR make giving back possible, many of them are choosing not to.
>(I'd say "most", but I don't think "most" have been asked yet and
>are likely
>unaware of the problem facing the RIRs soon.)  Some are knowingly hoarding
>address space in anticipation of financial gain, aka speculation,
>and opting
>out of the need-based system the community has endorsed and which
>gave them
>those oversize (due to inefficiency) assignments in the first place.
>
>> Although we (the small SP's) have signed a v6 RSA, are we going
>> to get the same ridicule and harassment in the future that the
>> Legacy IPv4 folk are seeing today?
>
>The "ridicule and harassment" is coming from a very small group of
>unfortunately vocal people.  The rest of us are trying to be polite and
>merely ask that legacy folks give back what they don't need (even
>using very
>liberal definitions of "need").

The devil is in the definition of need.

I have 10 point to point T1s.  I need 10 IPv4 /24s since I assign a /24 to
each circuit.  That is the problem, you see.

"Need" is elastic.  If someone is fighting for every /24 they can get,
they might even be using unnumbered, grudging even 4 IP addresses for
their point to point links.

I just did a support call this morning with a customer who has a
site down in SBCGlobal territory.  They needed a static IP on a DSL
line.  They were assigned a /29.  SBC uses Westell DSL model 2701
DSL modems that are configured in these instances to act as routers,
burning up 4 IP numbers at minimum (assuming the customer used a /30
mask, which they aren't doing)  So, while all the customer
needed was a single public IP on their firewall, and their firewall
could speak pppoe, the setup is the sbcglobal Westell speaks PPP to
SBC and wastes a /29 on it's ethernet interface.

It's incredibly wasteful.  Why are they doing this?  Beats me - but
do ya think it might have something to do with the possibility that
those numbers are out of 76.192.0.0/10 and SBC is doing some hedging
internally?

How much would anyone want to bet me that in 5 years if the customer
still has that line, that SBC will be knocking on their door telling them
they can renumber into a /32 and "save a bunch of money"

What, no one willing to take any sucker bets?

>If we did a straw poll of folks favoring
>carrots vs. sticks, I'm quite sure the former would outnumber the latter by
>an overwhelming margin.
>

In a perfect world, yes.  But when you actually start LOOKING at what
the hell is HAPPENING out in the real world you will turn up PLENTY
of stories like the one I just cited, and I think you will be getting
the sticks out and tossing the carrots a lot faster than you think.

Ted