[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Daniel Golding]

Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I supported it because
it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People who voted for it
were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of improving it later. I
like consensus solutions, but it just didn't work.

I don't think consensus on this issue will be possible. There are a couple
camps here....

- IPv6 Proponents who want a policy that will encourage IPv6 deployment
- Enterprise network managers (and their proxies) who will push for PI IPv6
space and enterprise multihoming
- Service Providers
- Router vendors and their allies who worry about routing table scalability

A consensus PP was attempted. It failed. Now, we should attempt to craft the
best possible PP for the greatest number of folks, and try to see it
through. The AC and Board can move forward without consensus if the need is
there. I think that should be done rarely, but this may be one of those
cases.

I like what Kevin had to say: You get IPv6 if you have IPv4 space now, or
you are BGP multihomed, you should be able to request IPv6.

- Dan 


On 1/23/06 4:01 PM, "Lea Roberts" <lea.roberts at stanford.edu> wrote:

> well, seems like maybe we should talk it out here (again... :-) for a
> while.  this sounds more like a "PI for everyone" policy.  while I'm sure
> there's a large number of people who would like that, I still think it's
> unlikely it can reach consensus...
> 
> As I said at the meeting in L.A., I still think it is possible to reach
> consensus for PI assignments for large organizations and I thought that's
> where we were still headed after the last meeting., i.e. trying to find
> criteria that the latest round of objectors could live with.
> 
> let the discussion begin!    /Lea
> 
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> Kevin,
>> Why don't you, Lea, and I take this off line and decide
>> what to present back to the group.  I apologize for not having
>> followed up in a more timely manner after the last meeting.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> On Jan 23, 2006, at 7:54 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
>> 
>>> Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>>> Hello;
>>>> 
>>>> When last I saw it, 2005-1 was to be reformatted to something more
>>>> like
>>>> its original version.
>>> 
>>> These were my suggestions using feedback from the last meeting:
>>> 
>>> To qualify for a minimum end site assignment of /44 you must either:
>>> 
>>>    - have an allocation or assignment directly from ARIN (and not a
>>>      legacy allocation or assignment)
>>> 
>>>    OR
>>> 
>>>    - meet the qualifications for an IPv4 assignment from ARIN without
>>>      actually requesting one.
>>> 
>>>    OR
>>> 
>>>    - be currently connected to two or more IPv6 providers with at
>>> least
>>>    one /48 assigned to you by an upstream visible in whois/rwhois.
>>> 
>>> Assignment prefixes shorter than the minimum would be based
>>> on some metric and definition of "sites".
>>> 
>>> One practical way to look at sites is by number of connections to
>>> separate upstream provider POPs.
>>> 
>>> +--------------------------+
>>> | Connections | Assignment |
>>> +-------------+------------+
>>> |         <12 |     /44    |
>>> |       <=192 |     /40    |
>>> |      <=3072 |     /36    |
>>> |       >3072 |     /32    |
>>> +-------------+------------+
>>> (C=0.75 * 2^(48-A))
>>> 
>>> Or if /56 becomes the new default PA assignment shift the assignment
>>> sizes right 4 bits.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Can someone tell me what the status of 2005-1 is currently ?
>>> 
>>> As far as I know it hasn't changed since the last meeting.  Obviously
>>> it should be updated one way or another.  I would gladly write up a
>>> formal revision or new proposal if requested.
>>> 
>>> - Kevin
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML mailing list
>>> PPML at arin.net
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML mailing list
>> PPML at arin.net
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml