[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process- revised
William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> Note the emphasis on subnetting so that you wouldn't consume an entire
>>> class C for every LAN segment. That's where the heads were in the game
>>> in 1995. That's what we cared about. Unless you were requesting a lot
>>> of addresses, deeper questions of "need" were CURSORY.
>> You realize that needs were different circa '95 and that the needs then are
>> much different than the needs now hence where the "heads" were then? In Sep
>> 94 there were about 84 web sites total (IIRC), hosting was done by the
>> address routed to the machine typically and RIP was useful. At that time I
>> was answering questions like "what is a proxy" "who is this warez guy!" and
>> "why are people wasting our capacity going to netscape everytime they open
>> their browser?". The needs of yesteryear were much different than the needs
>> of today and needs have always been the driver IMHO.
> I agree with everything you just said. Where does that leave us?
> The whole IPv6 PA-everywhere idea that came out of the IETF has enough
> glaring technical deficiencies that it won't fly. Is CIDR and the
> needs-based justification we've employed for the last 12 to 14 years
> the best answer there is? Or have we learned enough about routing and
> addressing in the last decade to come up with a better answer for the
> relatively clean slate afforded by IPv6?
> Bill Herrin
Well where I think it leaves us, we should define some basic needs
basis, some common sense requirements that entitles you to increasing
amounts of address space. One thing I like about your proposal is that
it eliminates the detailed usage based justifications of IPv4 and the
HD-Ratio concept we tried to replace it with currently in IPv6. Have
you ever tried to explain HD-Ratios to a pointy haired boss or an
But, what is wrong with some common sense limits?
1. If you need any addresses you get a /56;
2. You don't need a /48 unless you have at least 256 host;
That could be one host in each of the 256 subnets that a /56 gives you,
or 256 hosts in a single subnet.
3. You don't need a /40 unless you have more than one site;
4. If you reasonably expect to support more that 100 sites you probably
should have a /32;
5. You don't need anything more that a /32 unless you are supporting a
big bunch of sites, like 10,000 or more.
These are not onerous requirements, this is more about determining the
size of infinity you justify, than placing real functional limits on
anyone. Furthermore, I'm not stuck on these numbers, these are just
examples for discussion. Just like the pricing model you provided in
the proposal is an example for discussion. But, I believe we must have
something that makes it clear there is something more than simply the
size of your checkbook determining how much address space you may have
The primary limit is still going to be the fee structure, and it
probably should be, but we need something to deal with those that have
more money than sense. You might say if they want to waste there money,
let them. However, this will create inequities that is easy for people
to criticize, and if it gets bad enough it will create problems.
These are all simple enough, I could tell a pointy haired boss, an
accountant, maybe even a congressman or a political appointee too, and
for sure my grandma. They would all nod and would at least seem to
understand what I am talking about. Talking to any of them about a
HD-Ratios would make their heads explode or my teetotaling grandma to
get a good stiff belt of grampa's whiskey.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952