[ppml] 2005-1 status
Scott Leibrand
sleibrand at internap.com
Tue Jan 24 15:46:35 EST 2006
Ok. Could you perhaps re-post the version of 2005-1 you're referring to
to de-confuse folks like myself? :)
-Scott
On 01/24/06 at 3:34pm -0500, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
> 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