[ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

> I don't support PI space to end-sites.  We have to get rid of the 
> notion that a random end-site has any business whatsoever in mucking 
> with the global routing tables, either by making it much larger than 
> need be or by polluting it with needless dynamicity.

PI allocations do not allow prefixes into the global
routing table. That is something that ISPs do and it is
outside of ARIN's control. Historically, ISPs have filtered
prefixes that fell below some arbitrary threshold when it
was necessary to protect the viability of their networks.
Then, when new technology solved the problems, they eased
up on those filters. ARIN's IPv6 PI policy does not inhibit
the ability of ISPs to take similar action, if and when they
determine that there is a real imminent technical issue with
the global routing table. Current analysis shows that because
the IPv6 routing table is an order of magnitude smaller than
the IPv4 table, there is no current imminent issue. Therefore
many of us, me included, feel that it is prudent to release
PI IPv6 addresses to give the end users and ISPs the ability
to try this out on the real network.

> If so, the policy should be such that it minimizes the bad effects of 
> PI and encourages people to use other solutions if those are viable 
> for them (unfortunately, the only way to achieve that appears to be 
> $$$$), in particular (in the rough order of importance):
> 
>   1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least 
> 1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+).

This type of punitive fee is impossible for two reasons. One is
that ARIN policies may not specify fees. The other is that
punitive fees would be in violation of U.S. restraint of trade
legislation. In fact, it is possible that disallowing PI IPv6
allocations is, itself, a violation of restraint of trade laws.
It is not within ARIN's scope to be an architect of the Internet
marketplace. We can only put in place policies which allow 
that market to develop in a manner that is fair and roughly
balances the interests of all parties.

I don't believe that 2005-1 is a perfect policy, nevertheless
I do support moving forward with 2005-1 as it is currently.

--Michael Dillon