[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6 (and v6 fees)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Dec 7 12:13:46 EST 2004


> The way to stop this is to create ULAs and also
> create geographically agregatable addresses. Then
> the vast majority of users who might otherwise have
> chosen the ULA peering route will instead choose to
> use geographically agregatable addresses. Traffic destined
> to Ford's plant in Sacramento will always head towards California
> regardless of which provider network it travels on. Do you
> think Ford really cares if the traffic bounces off of
> San Francisco before reaching Sacramento?
>
No.  However, I don't think that the majority of providers will necessarily
cooperate in the transit love-fest that you envision to make this actually
work, either.

>> instead,
>> let's just recognize that a far larger segment of the enterprise
> community
>> needs PI than was previously believed,
>
> I strongly agree with this one. And I think we need a serious
> assessment of geographic addressing before we decide how to
> solve this. By serious, I mean some hard numbers that show us
> things like the number of households in every LATA in the USA
> as well as every Canadian province. In IPv6, the household is
> the basic unit of measure, better known as the /48. If we
> build a geographical addressing scheme that will handle the current
> number of households plus a bit, then we have something that will
> last for many years. And when it starts getting tight in one region
> or other, we can simply allocate a new continental agreggate because
> the impact on the global routing table will be minimal. We should
> be able to get this right with only these two allocations so that
> it will last the entire lifetime of IPv6 as we know it.
>
Noted, but, I'm not planning on adding geographical addressing to my
proposal.  If you want to propose geographical addressing, feel free
in the appropriate ICANN or ARIN forum.  Please don't use it as an
excuse to side-track this proposal.

> Personally, I'm not that bothered by ULA addressing. And I
> expect that any address range set aside for site local will end
> up being used as ULA addresses because the random prefix idea is
> too good to go away. In fact, if ULAs don't make it through the
> IETF, then people will do this anyway.
>
Nothing wrong with SLA being used as ULA.  That's the intent.  Difference
is SLA is known non-unique, therefore, known not-globally routable.  ULA,
OTOH creates at least an illusion of uniqueness, giving any end-site
with a quarter of a clue no reason not to expect their ISP to route it.
My only objection to ULA is that it is PI under an insidious name.  If
we're going to have PI, let's call it PI and allocate it sanely.  If we're
going to claim no PI space, then, let's not create PI space.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041207/df237ded/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list