[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Wed Apr 13 14:05:16 EDT 2005

> Lea Roberts wrote:
> since one of the good arguments for 2005-1 is to allow provider
> independent multi-homing, is there anyone out there who has been
> following the multi6 working group in IETF who believes there
> will a timely alternative forthcoming from that working group?

I stopped following it when I realized that no alternative would come
out in a timely manner, and it was a while ago.

> do folks believe that PI /48s assigned under 2005-1, should it
> become policy, would be willingly returned to ARIN by assignees
> once an alternative workable multi6 implementation exists

I don't. From the user's prospective, no multihoming alternative will
ever be as simple and straightforward as a PI block, why would one spend
time and money switching to a complicated solution when one already has
a simple one working fine?

> or would this policy just create SWAMPv6?

This policy would create SWAMPv6. SWAMPv6 will be more difficult to
clean than SWAMPv4, for two reasons:
a) Owners of SWAMPv6 blocks willing to release them will have to do
_both_ of the following: aa) renumber ab) embrace a new technology.
b) There will be no pressure to recover SWAMPv6 space as address
scarcity will not be an issue.

In the absolute, this is bad. That being said, it does not look that bad
compared to other alternatives which include:

1. NATv6, made easier by Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses [compared
to NATv4: no ambiguity, which is one of the major NATv4 issues].

2. Delay furthermore v6 deployment because of the lack of a multihoming

3. MEGASWAMPv6, obtained by routing Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses
globally (which requires nothing but enterprises and operators to
conveniently "forget" to filter them under financial pressure). In other
words, instead of giving money to ARIN to obtain a 2005-1 block,
enterprises would give the money to their ISP(s) to "forget" to filter
the Unique Local IPv6 Unicast they announce.

I have opposed swamp creation in the past, but what we are facing now is
not whether we will have a swamp or not but whether the swamp will
remain under ARIN control or not. Although it amounts to picking between
the lesser of two evils, I support 2005-1.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list