[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Bill Darte]

Michael,

So do you think if the RIR's decided that policy for IPv6 PI address
allocation was similar to what it is today for IPv4....the industry would
just have to 'figure it out' and would?  Could this actually happen if the
requirement for existing holders of IPv4 space were required to go
'wholesale' to v6 to qualify?

Not suggesting such a policy, just looking for perspective.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:37 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor
> 
> 
> > True, but in the various discussions I've seen of this idea, the 
> > natural
> 
> > conclusion seems to be that each geographical area would have an IX 
> > that
> all 
> > ISPs using the PI block would be required to connect to, 
> and each ISP
> would 
> > advertise only the aggregate to their transit providers.
> 
> The various geographical or geo-topological addressing models 
> that have been proposed don't MANDATE that an IX must be 
> established in any particular area. It is true that 
> establishing an IX is a logical way to deal with geo 
> addressing, but it could also be done with a local mesh of 
> private interconnects as well.
> 
> >  It appears
> > settlements would be required for traffic coming in on one 
> ISP's links 
> and 
> > headed to another ISP's customers; upstream traffic would 
> be handled 
> > as
> it 
> > is today.
> 
> Again, it is not clear whether or not settlements would be 
> required. I suspect that in some regions, geo addressing will 
> simply not be used because operators in that region can't 
> resolve settlement issues. In other areas they will be used 
> without any settlements, probably areas where IXes and route 
> servers are the norm for 
> ISP interconnection. And in other areas, ISPs will find 
> various ways of dealing with settlements.
> 
> In no case does the geo addressing mandate these things. It 
> is merely an enabler for alternate architectures and 
> alternate interconnect models. It enhances the Internet 
> ecosystem by providing diversity and has a real chance at 
> reducing pressure on the global routing table by giving the 
> long tail of small providers and 
> multihomed organizations a way to solve their diversity 
> problems without consuming slots in everyone's routing table.
> 
> > This model effectively trades a BGP routing problem for a money 
> > routing
> > problem.  Given no significant improvements have been made 
> to BGP for a 
> long 
> > time, perhaps it's time to let the bean-counters have their shot?
> 
> I agree that it is time for the technologists to stop hogging 
> the entire problem space of Internet routing. Technology is 
> here to serve the creativity of humans, not to restrict and 
> direct that creativity. Maybe it will be bean counters who 
> solve this and maybe it will be small business people, but 
> let's give them the chance.
> 
> > I'm also wondering how many "tier 1" providers would be willing to
> > participate in such a model absent government regulations. 
> 
> Big companies are known for being dumb and slow to change. 
> There is no reason why tier 1 Internet providers should be 
> exempt from this rule. Having clueful employees on the 
> payroll does not protect a 
> company from the consequences of "size".
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>