[ppml] 2005-1 status

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Tue Jan 24 15:29:45 EST 2006 

I would agree that IPv6 PI space should be made available to anyone who
qualifies for IPv4 PI space.  2005-1 as presented at L.A. was a bit more
restrictive than that, with the 100,000 device requirement.

No, I don't think there is any working shim6 code.  However, as I've tried
to say before, I think shim6 will provide a multihoming solution to those
who've thus far not had one available.  IMO such a solution, if widely
implemented, would likely be better for small sites than trying to run
BGP.

-Scott

On 01/23/06 at 9:52pm -0500, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:

> Easy
>
> The experiment has been run. Something you basically never get to do in
> the real world, run a test case, has been done courtesy of IPv4. And it
> works and hasn't caused problems.
>
> The original 2005-1 matches the existing IPv4 model closely, so the
> burden should be on those who want to
> change it, to show that their plans will work and not cause problems
> or undue burdens.
>
> Without working code for SHIM6, I do not see how that can be done. (I
> am not saying that that is sufficient, just necessary.) Thus, my
> question.
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Bill Darte wrote:
>
> > And I would request that alternatives posed should establish to the
> > extent
> > possible why this alternative is necessary or best suited to be the
> > consensus model.
> >
> > Bill Darte
> > ARIN AC
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list