[ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com>
> I have a hard time supporting giving owners of "legacy" IPv4
> registrations automatic IPv6 space. This just perpetuates the "early
> adopter" program (e.g., those that got big assignments prior to the
> the RIRs, get similar treatment in IPv6).

I would normally agree with this, but there are folks with legacy PI 
assignments that cannot qualify for a _new_ PI block from the RIRs.

>>          3) Be currently multihomed using IPv6 connectivity to two
>>             or more separate ARIN LIR's using at least one /48 assigned
>>             to them by each LIR.
>
> IMO, being multihomed in IPv4 should also be sufficient justification.
> One argument I keep hearing is that "we're assigning PI space in IPv4
> for multihoming, and the system is working". So let's try and leverage
> that experience.

That'll create a land rush for sure, as everyone who currently has a v4 
block comes running for their v6 block _without actually deploying v6_. 
Part of this policy is to accelerate the actual deployment of v6 in the ARIN 
region, not just hand out space to orgs.

> I suspect that /48 is too small, if we are aiming at the biggest end
> sites. E.g., take sites that have O(100K) subnets. According the HD
> ratio thresholds, that would correspond to (I think) a /44.
>
> One thing that I would find helpful is if there is any data available
> concerning sizes of organizations (in terms of
> networks/devices/users). How many organizations have 100K subnets? Is
> that number small enough that we can use it as a threshhold to give
> everyone with 100K subnets a PI assignment?

I've worked with a large fraction of the Fortune 50, and few have a need for 
O(100k) subnets.  For those that have a justifiable need for more than a 
/48, the proposal allows that.

> Although the following is far from perfect, using number of employees
> might be attractive in that it is information that is often publically
> available, and gives a very rough indication of number of machines
> (assume some multiple of machines/subnets per employee). But I recall
> from previous discussions, people preferred more relevant criteria
> like numbers of subnets.

The number of employees is even less relevant, IMHO, than the number of 
physical locations.

>>        6.5.8.3. Subsequent Assignment Size
>
>>          Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
>>          subnets is justified.  When possible assignments will be made
>>          from an adjacent address block.
>
> Perhaps specifically tie this back to the the HD ratio.

I have no argument with a HD ration tie-in, but then we'd need some debate 
on what the correct ratio is.  I don't think the number for ISPs is 
necessarily correct for end sites.

> So, here is a revised strawman based on the comments above:
>
> Add new subsection in section 6.5 of the NRPM:
>
>   6.5.8. Direct assignments to large end sites
>
>     6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization
>              must:
>
>       a) not be an IPv6 LIR;
>
>       b) meet all of the following requirements:
>
>         1) Qualify for an IPv4 direct assignment from ARIN under the
>            IPv4 policy currently in effect [specifically, Section
>            4.3, excluding microassignments. Note also that this means
>            end site must qualify for a /22 if multihoming. Is this
>            bar high enough?].
>
>         2) Be currently multihomed using IPv4 or IPv6 as defined in
>            "ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual Version 2005.1 -
>            September 7, 2005"

You don't need to call out the reference, since it's obvious.

>       6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to large end sites
>
>         Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment
>         criteria given in Section 6.5.8.1 are eligible to receive a
>         direct assignment.  The minimum size of the assignment is a
>         /40. Larger assignments will be made when justified using the
>         existing IPv6 applied HD ratio as given in Section 6.5.

Whoa, now you're saying all end sites deserve at least a /40?  Or is that a 
typo?

> Assignments will be made out of a specially designated
> address block that indicates a direct assignment to an
> endsite.
>
>       6.5.8.3. Subsequent Assignment Size
>
>         An organization may receive an additional assignment when it
>         has grown to include enough distinct physical locations to
>         justify the larger assignment. Where possible, the assignment
>         will be made from an adjacent address block.

Now only growth in the number of physical locations justifies additional 
assignments?  There may be other legitimate reasons for an org to come back 
for more addresses.

> So, what do people think of the above? An improvement? Still some
> unacceptable points?

I think it's a step backwards; objections noted above.

> Questions relating to above:
>
> 1) How many direct /22 IPv4 assignments have been made to date? That
>   is, how many organizations do we think would qualify? Are we
>   talking a few thousand? tens of thousands? or?

Well, right off the bat I'd say it's on the order of the number of assigned 
ASNs.  How many new folks will go get an ASN to take advantage of this 
policy is up for debate...

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