[ppml] Principles for IPv6 PI allocations to end sites

[Daniel Golding]

On 2/8/06 5:00 PM, "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> One possible metric for fairness is that since PI allocations each
> have a cost associated with them (in terms of route slots in the DFZ),
> we should attempt to maximimize the benefit of each such slot. Thus,
> one reason I favor PI space for "large end sites" is that large can be
> an indication of the numbers of networks/devices/users covered by a
> prefix. The more users/machines/networks covered by a prefix, the
> greater the "benefit" to the community in terms of carrying that
> prefix in the DFZ. Hence, I tend to lean towards giving PI space only
> to the largest end sites, i.e., those that will provide benefit to the
> largest communities.
> 
>

[snip]

This is a common trap. The assumption that more IP addresses means a need
for PI space is shaky. Many large enterprises have tens of thousands of
users behind a few NAT gateways - that won't change in v6. Also, many
content providers may only need a few visible IP addresses, but may generate
massive amount of traffic. The numbers game is easy to fall into.

Its important not to fall into this sort of thinking. Becoming multihomed
costs money. That's a barrier. Paying for IP address space and an AS are
also barriers. Value on the Internet is largely tied to economics. If we
need higher barriers to PI address space, they should be economic, rather
than any sort of arbitrary value judgments by "wise men".


> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

-- 
Daniel Golding