[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Mon Feb 13 12:17:17 EST 2006

On 02/13/06 at 11:54am -0500, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:

>    I have broader objections.  As stated elsewhere...
> In general I don't think creating IPv6 policy based on IPv4 policy
> requirements is a good idea.

Maybe not in the long term, but I think it's the best way to migrate from
IPv4 to IPv6.  For users who're starting up with IPv6 in the future we'll
need a different policy, but I don't think we're at the point yet where we
can reach consensus on what that policy should be.

> I am not convinced it's a good idea to give IPv6-PI space to any
> organization that can not show a immediate need for more then a single /48.

As I and others have stated before, I think the determinant of whether an
org needs PI space should be difficulty of renumbering, not strictly the
size of the netblock needed.

> I don't like the non-existent description of just exactly how a
> organization would ever qualify for more then a single /48. This
> seems to give ARIN staff nearly unlimited discretion as to what is
> acceptable distribution of /64s within a organization, and takes it
> out of the hands of public policy groups.

How is this different than the rules for LIRs giving out >/48 allocations?

> I'm not convinced that current routing protocols will handle wide spread
> use of /48 PI assignments. It seems to me that if ARIN passes this type of
> policy, it is in effect forcing the internet community as a whole, to deal
> with the consequences of such assignments. I'm not sure it's ARIN's place
> to force such a showdown.

How many IPv4 PI blocks have been assigned?  What would happen to the
routing table if we introduced that many IPv6 PI blocks?  IMO "not much".

>   Perhaps I would feel better about such things, if all RIRs passed
> similar polices simultaneously... I just don't feel like ARIN should be
> the trend setter with what I feel is a very liberal policy of giving out
> /48 sized blocks of IPv6-PI space. However I don't think you could gain
> anything approaching consensus in the world wide community for 2005-1 as
> it's currently written.

Well, if other RIRs pass different policies, we can look into
standardizing with them.  But IMO giving IPv6 PI space to those who
qualify for IPv4 PI space is not "very liberal", but rather is a
conservative first step to allow enterprises currently multihomed with PI
space to start implementing IPv6.

> If 2005-1 passes at ARIN XVII, I feel it will be largely because people
> may simply say... 'we must pass something with regard to IPv6 PI space'.
> I would seriously hate to think that we start adopting policy simply
> because we couldn't come up with something better.

I think a more accurate statement would be that if the latest revision of
2005-1 passes at ARIN XVII, it will be because people acknowledge that the
lack of provider independent multihoming capabilities is hindering the
adoption of IPv6, and that people agree that allowing orgs that multihome
with IPv4 PI space to do so with IPv6 PI space is a good first step to
rectifying that problem.  It's not a complete solution to the IPv6
multihoming problem, so some people will say we're not going far enough.
But IMO moving ahead in a stepwise fashion is the prudent course, and the
one most likely to achieve consensus.


> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> > Glenn,
> >
> > What do you think is bad about the current revision of 2005-1?  Do you
> > prefer Andrew's /19 threshold?  Or do you have broader objections?
> >
> > -Scott
> >
> > On 02/13/06 at 10:39am -0500, Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>     As much as I'd like to join you guys in suggesting that
> >> we just pass something no matter how bad it is... I can't.
> >>
> >> Glenn Wiltse
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02/13/06 at 3:18pm -0000, Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> wrote:
> >>>> and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the complaints
> >>>> about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed.  but, let's find
> >>>> out!
> >>>
> >>> Yes, let's.  I really think we should pass some sort of IPv6 PI policy at
> >>> Montreal.  If limiting the number of PI allocations allowed under the
> >>> policy makes that possible by making the policy more palatable to a wider
> >>> audience, I'm all for it.  I just want to make sure that we don't set the
> >>> limit too low.
> >>>
> >>> -Scott
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PPML mailing list
> >>> PPML at arin.net
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > !DSPAM:43f0acf126183167036266!
> >
> >

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list