[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Owen DeLong]

There is a collection of constituents which is >5 which believes that
after seeing the rewrites to 2005-1 presented in LA, the original 2005-1
is more likely to achieve consensus and should be revoted.

If I see something resembling consensus coming out of the PPML
discussion, I will work with Kevin and Lea to produce a new version
of 2005-1 that I think is more in line with that consensus.

If not, I'll suggest we go with Kevin's proposal presented on PPML
earlier today.  There are some things I don't like in it (I'm not sure
I agree with penalizing early adopters just because they happen
to have legacy blocks), but, I can live with it.

Owen

On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

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