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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Owen,

See below.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Responder a: <owen at delong.com>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:35:33 -0700
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6
> assignment and utilisation requirement - Last Call
> 
> 
> 
> --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.

Yes, but following the same calculations, this means less than $0,035 per
year per each /48 customer, so not a big deal, not an issue at all. I'm even
happy to pay ten times that every month if needed, but I want to make sure
that I don't need to explain to any ISP why I need a /48 instead of a /56
and have the chance to get that rejected or need to look for an alternative
ISP just because this.

> 
>> 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.

Statistically seems to me highly improbable, because even in a situation of
high level of addressing space utilization (which will never happen because
we will have done a policy change before going into that situation), new
ISPs will only happen if other close the business or similar situations.
Anyway, is a complex situation to predict, and for sure we will not have the
right crystal ball to look at and make a good guess ;-)

> 
>> 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.

I think Geoff figures were assuming that no change is done in the HD-ratio,
right ?

> 
> Owen
> 
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.