[ppml] 2005-1 status

Thus spake <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com>
>> > Secondly, according to the existing IPv6 policy, if McDonalds were to
>> > go to an ISP and ask for IPv6 connectivity for their network of 12,300
>> > restaurants, the ISP would assign them 12,300 /48 address blocks.
>> > That is the policy ...
>>
>> No, the current policy is that the LIR can assign a single /48 or
>> forward the request for more (with justification) to ARIN.
>>
>> You're confusing "end site" with "location".  According to the NRPM:
>>
>>         6.2.9. End site
>>
>>         An end site is defined as an end user (subscriber) [...]
>>
>> So, a single end user organization counts as one "end site" regardless
>> of the number of physical locations it has.
>
> Well, it seems like the policy needs more work to change
> this silliness. IPv6 addressing was intended to assign a
> /48 to a single end-site meaning more-or-less a single
> location. My apartment, your house, the Walgreen's store
> on the corner.

That may have been the intent, but unless the author of that section speaks 
up, I think it's open for debate.  IMHO, the intent was to assign a /48 to 
each leaf org unless they justified more regardless of the number of 
locations, and the choice of the word "site" was unfortunate.

Note that 6.2.9 applies to PA space just as much as PI space, so if we want 
to change that it should be in a separate proposal from one that creates PI 
in the first place.  And, for the record, I think the current proposal is 
useful whether or not 6.2.9 is changed.

> RIPE has started to correct this with a policy proposal
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2005-4.html
> to clarify the wording.

As noted by Leo Vegoda, this has been withdrawn.  I'd be interested in 
knowing why, though, in case it indicates what our experience might be in 
the same area.

> Let's face it, McDonald's Restaurants is never going to
> buy an IPv6 connection to the IPv6 Internet if they already
> have a private network connecting all the restaurants.

Why not?  Such orgs likely use 10/8 today with NAT for global connectivity, 
and I don't see why they'd bother to deploy IPv6 in the first place without 
an IPv6 upstream connection.  While I can't come up with a specific example 
of why McD's restaurants might need public IP connectivity, I know other 
similarly large orgs (which I can't detail) that need nearly every host in 
their network to have both inbound and outbound connectivity to other 
parties.  This is a pain with IPv4 due to NAT, but IPv6 solves that nicely 
provided they can get PI space.  The alternative is ULAs and NAT.

> We are not supposed to be scrimping and saving on IPv6
> address space by wringing our hands over whether or not
> a site DESERVES a /48.

Nor are we supposed to be doing our best to waste IPv6 space by holding to 
an unstated "/48 per location" policy when a typical location only needs one 
or two /64s.

If an applicant came back with reasonable justification why their site (i.e. 
org) needed more than a /48 total, even to the level of a /48 per location, 
I'm confident ARIN would go along with it.  There is nothing in the proposal 
that prohibits such if it's justified.

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