[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites - Revised Text
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Tue Sep 27 06:38:19 EDT 2005
You are completely correct. It is a compromise to try and get some form of
PI
policy on the books, then, be able in a year or two, to point to it and say
"See... No land rush, now can we do something reasonable?".
There is just too much religion about not giving PI space to "small"
organizations
to achieve consensus around the original 2005-1. Between the AC
representatives
that worked with us, Kevin (who authored another similar policy which was
merged
with 2005-1), and myself, we decided that this was the best way to go to
achieve
consensus and get a policy on the books.
I hope that given that, you will be able to support the policy moving
forward
so that we can get some experience on the book to try and relax the
requirements.
In my experience, it is usually easier to reduce requirements gradually
than to
try and open a floodgate policy all at once. It was made very clear from
the
last meeting that there are too many opponents to the idea of giving PI
space
to any multihomed organization in the v6 world. In my opinion, this is
short
sighted, unfair, impractical, and, elitest on the part of the large
organizations
that are pushing this policy. However, there are some practical
considerations
as well (ASN exhaustion and Routing Table growth). In my opinion, we need
to
solve these issues through technology (32 bit ASNs and better ways to manage
routing) instead of through restrictive and capricious address policy.
However, the tools available today in ARIN are policy, not technology, so,
we
have to work with what we have. Thus the current compromise.
Owen
--On September 26, 2005 11:46:39 AM -0400 Marshall Eubanks
<tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
--
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050927/70500791/attachment.sig>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list