[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

--On April 15, 2006 12:28:40 AM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

> Hi Owen,
> 
> Yes, I know, it may seem so, but is not the case.
> 
> Actually for the ISP is cheaper to keep a flat infrastructure, having
> everything with /48.
> 
I think that's variable from an infrastructure perspective, however, from
an RIR fees perspective, if each /32 costs $x, then, each /48 costs
either $x/65536 or $x/n where n is the number of customers you can
put into said /48.  In the case where n>65536, the cost per /48 is
reduced.

> I also don't think the RIR fees will make a difference, at least not in
> the short/medium term for that, but of course, this is something that is
> yet not clear.
> 
Obviously at the moment when RIRs are waiving v6 fees, this is true.
However, given that a /32 costs $2,250/year and a /31 costs $4,500
per year, if I can multiply the customer count in the first /32
by as little as 2, it is useful.

> In theory the only reason for 2005-8 is to conserve space. If that's the
> case, then what I'm proposing will make it, as the reserved /48 which is
> not being used, will be available if we really reach the point where we
> used all the non-reserved space. A small policy modification at that
> point, will allow the ISPs to forget about those /48 reservations that
> have not been claimed by end-users.
> 
With the possible exception of free address pool fragmentation, I would
agree with you to a certain extent.  The only other problem I see is that
it won't be perceived as an issue until several ISPs have grabbed onto
multpile /32s with lots of empty reserved space and some other ISP(s)
need an unavailable /32.  I agree this is a long way off, but, in terms
of IPv6 potential useful life, a long way off might not be far enough.

> I think we should remember that if we agree to change the HD-ratio, the
> figures that Tony has calculated, and I think are realistic, give IPv6 a
> life of 480 years. Anyone still believe that IP (IPv4 or IPv6, doesn't
> matter for this case), will be still available in 200 years ? So ?
> 
I've seen numbers (I think from Geoff Huston) that said it was more
like 60 years.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- 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/20060414/eafb7457/attachment.sig>