[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites

[Kevin Loch]

Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> Have we agreed that in IPv6 we'll use the term "LIR"? 

I tried to use language similar to the rest of section
6.  It's my understanding that "LIR" is the subset of
ISP's that qualify for an allocation from an RIR.

In the ARIN reigon they are essentially the same today but
those semantics are not within the scope of this proposal.

> 
>>          6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites
>>                   Only one direct assignment may be made to 
>> 			an end site organization.
>>
>>                   End sites that require more than 65536 
>> subnets should request space from an LIR or consider becoming
>>                   an LIR.
> 
> So NRPM 6.2.4, would define "the users of the network services that
> it [the LIR] provides" as intra-company departments, to whom it
> would have to SWIP or equivalent?  Is that unusual?

This doesn't change the definition of an LIR, it merely
suggests that becoming one is a solution to needing more
space.  They would still have to meet the requirements
for an allocation.  If that second paragraph is bothersome
it can be deleted.

> Do we have any teeth to the "return within 1 year" policy?  In the
> past, the enforcement has been, "or you won't get any more address
> space," which isn't much incentive in IPv6.

This bothers me too, I would like to hear suggestions
on how we could enforce this.  In the worst case scenario
they end up with a /48 and a /32 which is not the end
of the world.  I wanted the policy to at least say
you shouldn't do that.

> In what way does the lack of PI assignments inhibit enterprise adoption?
> Is multi-homing harder, is it less reliable, or is it fear of commitment
> to an ISP?

This proposal is primarily about provider independence and multihoming
as a secondary effect.  We have heard on this list and others in
the past from enterprises and content sites that this is a big deal.
Hopefully they will reiterate their position on this proposal.

> 
> is there any guidance 
> on how they should assign IPv6 addresses?  Should each web server get a 
> /48, or a /64, or a /128?  Or does each server get a /64 (per interface)
> 
> and each virtual host gets a /128?

No guidance is given for how to utilize direct assignments other
than you only get a PI /48 to work with.  If you need more,
get a non-PI /48 from an upstream or become an LIR (which most
large hosting companies would qualify for under current rules anyway).

> If most organizations could easily qualify for an LIR allocation, then
> how is the lack of this proposed policy hindering adoption?

Perhaps they feel applying for a /32 would be wasteful?
Or they fear that they would not comply with future tightening of
the rules?  U would like to hear from those who are waiting for a
direct assignment policy so we don't have to guess.

- Kevin