[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Scott Leibrand]

I would agree.  However, 2005-1 did not reach consensus, so we need to
come up with an alternative that's more likely to do so.  I would love to
hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for
allocating IPv6 PI space so we can better gauge what would be a consensus
position.

-Scott

On 01/23/06 at 9:01pm -0500, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> I cannot predict what might happen hundreds of years from now.
>
> I can say, however, that 2002-3 has not caused an explosion in the
> routing table for IPv4, nor
> would I expect that 2005-1 would do so for IPv6.
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:10 PM, Lea Roberts 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>