[ppml] 2005-1 status

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 2 01:34:52 EST 2006

--On February 1, 2006 9:35:16 PM -0500 Scott Leibrand 
<sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:

> George,
> I think we all agree that enterprises need to be able to multihome, switch
> ISPs, and traffic engineer.  But the devil is in the details, i.e. how.
> It sounds like you represent a large network that would qualify for IPv4
> PI space, and for whom PA space is unreasonable because of the renumbering
> difficulty.  So I wanted to get your opinion on the point I've been trying
> to introduce into the discussion: at what point along the spectrum from a
> home user to a large multinational corporation does PI space become the
> best (or only) option for effective multihoming?

With all due respect, I think you are asking the wrong question.  That
question boils down to how can we optimize who we give full citizenship
in the internet to and who we treat as second class citizens.  I think
instead, we should be asking "How do we accomodate everyone who needs
PA space?"  Todays routing paradigm will not do it.  We know that.
As such, I think the question then shifts to "How long should we continue
to accept a routing paradigm which is known not to meet the needs
of all of the constituents of the internet?  How hard should we work
and how many entities are we willing to penalize in order to preserve
the status quo?"

> I know a home user doesn't need PI space: an IPv6 prefix from each of his
> ISPs (or his and his neighbors) would suffice.  But does a small business
> with a single location need PI space to multihome?  What about about a
> larger business with a hundred employees and a branch office or two?
How do you know this?  Granted, I agree that the home user that needs
this today is few and far between.  However, as more and more people
and families become generators and not just consumers of content, I
believe this will change in the long run.

Certainly there are many small businesses with single locations that may
need PI space to multihome effectively.  Some may need it even if they
are not multihomed in order to accomodate the ability to switch providers
without having to address configurations an a vast number of devices they
do not control.  However, most such businesses are multihomed today,
so, I can live with multihoming as a base threshold for now.

Certainly, the larger the organization gets, the higher the percentage
you will find needing PI space today.

> As I've stated before, I really think we need to set up the policy such
> that only the people for whom PI space is the only reasonable option will
> go that route.  If we give PI space out to anyone with two ISPs, I'm
> pretty sure we're cause a marked increase in routing table growth over
> what we've seen with IPv4.
That may be true.  My question is: "Should we continue to penalize the
end users in order to prevent this, or, should we instead start insisting
on an improved routing paradigm that takes this need into account."

I realize ARIN can't redesign the routing system, but, we can decide
whether we want to base policy on preservation of the status quo, or,
instead on the needs of all of our constituencies.


If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060201/fb822a9f/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list