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

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Fri Feb 10 10:11:47 EST 2006

On Feb 10, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> 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.
>>> 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
>> 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.
>> Direct assignment size to large end sites
>>         Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment
>>         criteria given in Section 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.
>> 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...

I think that is way off. I was told a while ago it was
a few dozen at most 2002-3 requests, so that's 3 orders of magnitude  
less than the number of ASN. I am sure that
ARIN can provide an updated number.

It is true that most new ASN announced into BGP are from multi-homed  
end sites. Here, for example, are the
new announcements with ARIN handles for the month of February so far  
as seen from here :

   11885         CSI                             [PP469-ARIN]          
   17050         MCVP-AS-NO                      [BMI29-ARIN]          
{Boston, MA, US}              TAC Partners, Inc.
   22388         TRANSPAC                        [CR721-ARIN]          
{Bloomington, IN, US}         Indiana University
   17372         BMO-TOR2                        [AU155-ARIN]          
{Scarborough, ON, CA}         Bank of Montreal
   33676         BIVAPR-AS                       [PM380-ARIN]          
{Santurce, PR, PR}            WHTV Broadcasting Corp.
   14572         SUAVEMENTE                      [SNO26-ARIN]          
{Chula Vista, CA, US}         Suavemente, INC.
   14600         MXL-PROD                        [NOC1845-ARIN]        
{Englewood, CO, US}           MX Logic, Inc.
   16936         TECHNORATI                      [TTC1-ARIN]           
{San Francisco, CA, US}       Technorati, Inc.
   32287         SOLANA-CITIPLEX                 [PATRI6-ARIN]         
{New York, NY, US}            Citigroup
   19666         HENDERSONBROTHERS-MAIN          [ECO22-ARIN]          
{Pittsburgh, PA, US}          Henderson Brothers, Inc.
   10851         NREP                            [ON2-ARIN]            
{Nashville, TN, US}           Nashville Regional Exchange Point
   10659         SEQUENT-CS2                     [NOCTE3-ARIN]         
{Research Triangle Park, NC, US} IBM
   26388         RLMNY                           [JO400-ARIN]          
   21955         TALECRIS                        [TS1177-ARIN]         
{RTP, NC, US}                 Talecris Biotherapeutics

(as seen as part of the multicast status page effort, http:// 
www.multicasttech.com/status )

How many of these are truly multihomed is not clear, but I do not  
think that many are asking for micro-assignments.
I do think that the ones that do need them, should be able to get  
them. I think that, within some loose filters, they
can be trusted to make that determination.

I do not know if many people are thinking in IPv4 or IPv6, but it  
seems clear to me that a lot are
thinking in terms of 1999. Those days are gone.

Marshall Eubanks

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list