[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6

[Scott Leibrand]

On 04/26/06 at 2:15am -0400, Aaron Dudek <arin at sprint.net> wrote:

> I am against this policy.

Fair enough...

> It appears that most people at the last want to make a policy for policy's
> sake.

I disagree.  I think most people are in favor of 2005-1 because they
recognize that this PI policy is better than no PI policy.

> There are many other things that haven't been looked at in addition
> to just IPv4 and IPv6 tables. I haven't heard or seen any studies of the
> impact that VPNs have in addition and even get more nervous when
> discussions on PEv6 are brought up.

I'm not sure what special impact PI space would have on VPNs or PEv6.  Can
you elaborate?  In particular, do you have any idea how many PI routes it
would take to start breaking either technology (given current hardware)?

> As others have mentioned, historically temporary solutions aren't. I
> believe that we are making the same mistakes as we did when v4 was first
> rolled out with a /48 out of a reserved /44 per PI request. How large is
> this PI swamp that is being proposed?

The number of PI allocations will be small, at least at first.  The number
of entities that have gotten IPv4 PI is small (less than 10,000 IIRC), and
you have to qualify for IPv4 PI to get IPv6 PI under 2005-1.  Hardware
will continue increasing in capability, so as long as we keep an eye out
for problems we can make changes to policy before we start causing issues
for operators.

> If 2005-1 is repealed, how will the space be returned without litigation?
> Odds are that it won't and we'll be forced with it with no recourse.

And what if the space isn't returned?  Say 5 years down the road a new way
of multihoming takes off, and we completely repeal 2005-1.  All the
existing PI holders keep their space, though, and space is only returned
through attrition.  The number of PI routes in the routing table stops
growing, but the capacity of routers keeps growing as it has since day 1.
Before too long, router capacity so far exceeds the capacity needed to
carry the PI routes that everyone forgets there was ever a problem.

-Scott