[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!

[Thomas Narten]

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com writes:

> >  The goal of a small routing table
> > must remain; there are some great technology ideas behind that goal.

> We all know that ISPs control the size of their routing 
> table through BGP filters. ARIN does not need to be concerned
> with limiting the size of this table through policy.

Sorry, this is nonsense, and saying it over and over again doesn't
make it otherwise. I'm tempted to say something about not worrying
about passing laws that defy physics, under the theory that physics is
a problem for someone other than lawmakers to worry about...

If the routing table gets too big, ISPs will be forced to take steps,
like impose filters. When that happens, somebody loses. I.e.,
somebody's connectivity can go away.  If there are steps that ARIN can
take (when making policy) that significantly reduce the odds that this
will happen, or that help ensure that there alternative mechanisms in
place so that those losing connectivity are not left out in the cold,
we should take them. That is what this discussion is all about. How
can we introduce PI assignments to end sites without opening the door
so wide that we create a mess we don't really know how (from an
operations and technology perspective) to handle? Saying we don't have
to worry about this problem one iota is not helpful, because it is
rather clear that a significant chunk of the community _is_ concerned
about this issue (even if you are not).

> Those are the facts of Internet life today. ARIN policies
> cannot mandate anyone to accept a route prefix

Correct. But at the same time, it would serious foolishness to adopt
policies that are likely to cause significant problems down the road
for which we do not have a reasonable fix. In other words, ARIN should
not adopt a policy in which users assume they are getting a routable
address block, when in fact, there is a real possibility that it will
not be routable in the future. 

> ARIN exists to serve the public, not to serve ISPs.

It is really unhelpful to couch this in "public" vs. "ISP" tones,
since things are not that simple. I care about having an Internet that
works (for everyone) and having a bloated route table in which ISPs
are forced to filter with the end result being loss of connectivity
for certain classes of end users is not something I want to see happen
and is not something I believe would serve the public.

Thomas