[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com>
>> And, as pointed out earlier, this opens up the possibility that every
>> home user that hits up a couple free tunnel brokers can get PI space.
>> A policy with a hole like that will never pass because it will lead to
>> a meltdown of the DFZ or wholesale filtering of PI space if there's
>> even minor adoption.
>
> It's not a hole in the policy. If the home user is actually
> implementing BGP multihoming, then they should qualify for
> a PI address block.

That's arguable, but according to the current definitions, a site doesn't 
have to use BGP to be "multihomed" anyways, with either IPv4 or IPv6.  All 
you need is "full-time connectivity" from two ISPs and have those two ISPs 
announce your routes.

> Our policy can mitigate against this possibility by selecting
> these PI assignments from geographical aggregates [...]

We're all familiar with your affinity for geotop addressing, but I don't 
think that's sufficient mitigation for the problem at hand.

> In any case, the hurdle of actually implementing IPv6 multihoming,
> or IPv4 multihoming, puts enough of a limit on takeup of these
> PI blocks for the time being.

The "hurdle" of qualifying for multihoming currently consists of clicking 
your mouse a couple dozen times.  That's not enough of a barrier.

Paying a few hundred bucks to ARIN for a /48 does, but probably not enough 
to assuage ISPs' fears of a massive v6 swamp.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin