[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Scott Leibrand]

One possible argument (which I'm not sure I completely subscribe to) is
that v6 at least has the possibility of multihoming without PI
space, using shim6.  The way I see it, shim6 will initially be most viable
for the smallest sites, the ones that have no chance of getting PI space.
It will be initially non-viable for large multihomed sites with traffic
engineering requirements, lots of hosts, and spread out networks.  Those
sites are the ones doing PI now with v4, and IMO they will continue to
need the ability to do PI with v6.

So with that in mind, I would argue that ARIN's IPv6 PI policy should
encourage small multihomed sites to use a non-PI multihoming model (shim6)
while preserving the ability for large multihomed sites to get PI space
and multihome the traditional way.

Is that a consensus position?  If not, which aspect of it do you disagree
with, and why?  If so, then we can and should proceed to defining who's
big enough to need PI space for sure (regardless of the success of
introducing TE into shim6), who's too small to warrant PI space
regardless, and what to do about drawing the line in the middle.

I'm of the opinion that we should start by letting the larger sites who're
certain to need PI space get it sooner, and wait to relax the requirements
later if shim6 can't be extended to meet the TE and management needs of
intermediate-sized hosts.

-Scott

/me sits back to watch the discussion heat up, and see if flames actually
erupt.

On 01/23/06 at 3:20pm -0600, Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu> 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
>