[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Marshall Eubanks]

I do not agree with this position. I see no reason why the assignment  
policies
should be different and I see a strong demand for multi-homing.

BTW, is shim6 running code ?

Regards
Marshall

On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml