[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites - Revised Text

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

This proposal seems like such a radical change in the original 2005-1 (unless I am
reading it incorrectly) that frankly I think it would have been more appropriate to have given it a
new designation.

(BTW, was there discussion of the 100,000 end nodes requirements on the list ? I don't recall any.)

Note that, for most end users, a device connected to the Internet is likely to cost order $ 1000
each, and there is likely to be no more than 2 or 3 Internet connected devices per employee. So,
we are talking about making /48 address blocks directly available to large corporations, with 
a minimum of $ 100 million in  equipment expenditures. That is not the spirit that I understood the
original 2005-1, which was (at least in my understanding) aimed more at companies that needed
to multihome, without such a strict size filters.

I cannot support the  current 2005-1 as I read it. I welcome attempts to convince me of the errors
of my ways.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:36:21 -0400
 Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:
> Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for
> End-sites has been revised by the authors. This proposal is open for
> discussion on the mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming
> Public Policy Meeting.
> 
> The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Member Services Department
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> 
> ### * ###
> 
> 
> Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
> 
> Author: Owen Delong, Kevin Loch
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Add new subsection to the NRPM:
> 
>      6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites
> 
>          6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
> organization must:
> 
>             1. not be an LIR;
>             2. be an end site;
>             3. be currently multihomed using IPv6 to two or more
> separate LIR's using at least one /48 assigned to them by each LIR.
>             4. be able to assign IPv6 addresses to at least 100,000
> unique devices within 1 year and advertise that connectivity through
> it's single aggregated address assignment.
> 
>          6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to end sites
> 
>          Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria
> are eligible to receive a direct assignment of /44
>          6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites
> 
>          Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site
> organization under Section 6.5.8
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> The original proposal 2005-1 would have provided for a Provider
> Independent IPv6 allocation to anyone who could qualify for an
> Autonomous System number. While this proposal failed to reach consensus
> at the ARIN XV meeting in Orlando in April 2005, the Advisory Council
> agreed there was sufficient interest in the proposal to see if it could
> be recrafted into a proposal capable of reaching consensus.
> 
> The main objections to the original 2005-1 were a concern over a run on
> AS numbers, which are currently the most constrained Internet Resource
> until 4-byte ASN's are a reality, and major concerns over the
> possibility of a large increase in the size of the IPv6 default-free
> routing table. There were assertions that it was too early for making
> multi-homing alone a rationale for a direct assignment of IPv6 address
> space, unless it was only for a limited time, until the viability of the
> shim6 effort in IETF could be determined. While the current number of
> sites who multi-home could easily be accomodated at this time, the
> effect of an IPv6 policy has to be looked at over the multiple 10s of
> years that IPv6 will need to be functional. Very few people believed
> that limited time assignments were viable (i.e. could actually be
> reclaimed) and asserted that it would create a similar situation to
> IPv4, where early adopters have an unfair advantage. In support of the
> proposal, a number of commercial companies, who were attending the
> co-located NAv6TF meeting, expressed their unwillingness to invest
> resources in deploying IPv6 with Provider Assigned address space, as
> they were unwilling to be "locked in" to a provider or else have to
> renumber their entire enterprise. When the sense of the room was taken,
> the attendees were about evenly split and so there was clearly not a
> consensus.
> 
> Discussions with those who opposed the advancement of 2005-1 indicated
> they were very concerned about almost unlimited access to Provider
> Independent IPv6 address assignments. They indicated that it was too
> early in the protocol's lifetime to allow unrestricted routing table
> growth and expressed the hope that shim6 might still be successful.
> 
> There is a real belief that IPv4-like multi-homing will doom the IPv6
> routing table to grow beyond a workable size and some other solution
> must be found! Many of them expressed an understanding of the large
> organization renumbering problem and indicated that they would support a
> policy that provided for PI address assignments to a small number of
> large organizations for whom the cost of renumbering would be a
> significant expense.
> 
> So this new version of proposal 2005-1 has been reworked to apply to a
> much more limited number of organizations and should not lead to
> unrestricted growth of the IPv6 routing table.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: immediate
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml