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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Feb 13 19:54:51 EST 2006



--On February 13, 2006 11:54:38 AM -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.
> 
What would you rather base them on instead?  To a certain extent, I agree
that IPv6 policy shouldn't be based entirely on IPv4 policy, but, absent
any other more relevant operational experience, I think that IPv4
experience and policy is at least a reasonable starting point.  If you
don't, then, please, by all means propose a viable alternative.

> I am not convinced it's a good idea to give IPv6-PI space to any 
> organization that can not show a imediate need for more then a single /48.
> 
Understood.  On this we will agree to disagree.

> I don't like the non-exsistant description of just exactly how a 
> originization 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 orgization, and takes it
> out of the hands of public policy groups.
> 
Fair enough... I am not opposed to building a better definition
of this.  Can you propose language or ideas on how you would like
to see this aspect of the policy structured?

> 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.
> 
I am convinced that:

	1.	Current routing protocols will not handle wide-spread
		use of /48 PI assignments.

	2.	That is not an issue because their use is unlikely to
		be widespread prior to a time when we will see significant
		changes to routing protocols and processes.

	3.	Without a PI policy, it doesn't matter what the routing
		protocols will support because there won't be anything
		for them to support.

	4.	ARIN cannot force anyone to accept anything in their
		routing table.  ARIN has no control over any routers
		other than those operated by ARIN for their internal
		networks.  As such, not only is it not ARIN's place
		to force such a showdown, it is impossible for them
		to do so regardless of policy.

	5.	People who run routers are intelligent and adaptable.
		A solution to keep things running will be found.  It
		may result in some PI /48s being unroutable in part of
		the internet.  Policy doesn't guarantee routability.
		People who apply for addresses under such policies
		should be aware of that.  It's in the ARIN disclaimer
		that everyone signs when they apply for space.

>   Perhaps I would feel better about such things, if all RIRs passed 
> simmilar policys simultainously... 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 aproaching consensus in the world wide community for 2005-1 as 
> it's currently written.
> 
Again, I suspect we will agree to disagree.  I think it is perfectly OK
for ARIN to be a trend setter.  It will not be the first time, and, I
hope it won't be the last.  There is nothing wrong with innovation
occurring in North America.  I don't know whether the other RIRs would
support something like 2005-1 or not.  I confess I'm not that worried
about it, either, since I don't live or work in those regions and so
far, their policies don't really affect me.  Certainly if someone from
one of those regions asked for my assistance in crafting such a policy,
I would be happy to help.

> 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 seriouly hate to think that we start adopting policy simply 
> because we couldn't come up with something better.
> 
Well... I suppose there are two ways to look at it.  I think there is
consensus that PI space in IPv6 is needed.  I think there is further
consensus that neither the original proposed 2005-1 (too liberal), nor
the Orlando version of 2005-1 (too restrictive and arbitrary) will
address the needs of the community.  I think that the current revision
of 2005-1 represents significant improvement over prior versions and
takes a lot of the community feedback on the issues into account.

One way to look at it is as you have above... "Adopting X because we
couldn't come up with anything better."  Another way to look at
it is "Adopting X because we believe it is better than the current
situation, and, we feel X is the best we could come to consensus
on."  Frankly, if what we have on the table is better than what
we have in current policy, then, I say let's go for it and improve
it down the road.  Any improvement is better than no improvement.
Future improvement is always possible.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- 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/20060213/aa5207cf/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list