[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Daniel Golding]

That is proof by assertion. The routing table has grown relatively slowly,
and there is NO reason to think it will grow faster under IPv6. The argument
seems to be that IPv6 will have a much longer lifetime than IPv4, so we have
to plan for 20 or 50 years from now.

Trying to plan past 10 or so years in technology seems foolish. We can't
imagine what technology will be like in 50 years. We may be approaching a
technological singularity, making such projections useless (Kurzweil, et
al), or the Internet may look completely different by then.

I understand where the hardware vendors are coming from. Given that, I think
we need to take it with a grain of salt.

- Dan

On 1/23/06 4:10 PM, "Lea Roberts" <lea.roberts at stanford.edu> wrote:

> because, as I'm sure you remember, Bill, the routing table won't scale
> over the lifetime of v6
> 
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Darte wrote:
> 
>> OK, I'll start....
>> 
>> Why should the criteria for PI in v6 be ANY different than with v4?
>> What was large under v4 is somehow not large under v6 apparently?
>> Turn in you v4 PI block for a v6 PI block.
>> 
>> That's probably a sufficiently high level argument to begin the discussion.
>> 
>> Bill Darte
>> ARIN AC
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>>> Behalf Of Lea Roberts
>>> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 3:01 PM
>>> To: Owen DeLong
>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml