[ppml] 2005-1 or its logical successor

[Steve Feldman]

On Oct 27, 2005, at 11:04 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:

>
> for the record, the straw poll was 24 vs 25.

... And for what it's worth, my vote for the policy was mostly because
it was better than no policy at all, and hoping it could be cleaned
up on the way to adoption.  I was also in favor of the original 2005-1.

>
> For the record, here are some excerpts from what I wrote to Kevin Loch
> inviting him to work on the combined 2005-1 that you are so unhappy  
> about.
> I hope this will help others (and maybe even you) to understand how  
> the
> extra stuff got piled on.  I honestly believe that for 2005-1 to  
> achieve
> consensus it has to focus on the large organizations for whom  
> renumbering
> is a problem while having criteria which would limit the number of
> qualifying organizations to the range of 5K to 10K.  When I wrote  
> the text
> below, the feedback from other AC members is that it matched their
> recollection from ARIN XV.

I think it's a mistake to focus on renumbering as the main issue; it  
really comes
down to multihoming.  Whether I multihome using PA or PI addresses,  
my prefix
is necessarily going to take up a slot in the global routing table.   
So if
multihoming is to be allowed at all, routing tables will have to grow.

Given that, it doesn't make much sense to force the multihomers into  
PA space
(unless the objective is to provide a disincentive to switch providers.)

So the fundamental questions should be:
  1) should IPv6 end sites be permitted to multhome?
  2) if so, should there be more stringent restrictions than on IPv4  
multihoming?
  3) if so, what sorts of entities should qualify, and how can the  
restrictions be
     crafted to achieve that goal?

     Steve