[ppml] 2005-1 status

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Tue Jan 24 15:34:47 EST 2006 

Hello;

On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> 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.

Yes, thus the proposal to go back to the original 2005-1. (Shouldn't  
these have version #s?)
>
> 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.
>

Sure. We can certainly revisit this once that day comes.

> -Scott

Marshall

>
> 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