[ppml] 2005-1 status
Marshall Eubanks
tme at multicasttech.com
Tue Jan 24 15:57:26 EST 2006
Sure :
http://www.arin.net/policy/archive/2005_1_orig.html
However, there is a caveat that it is 2:30 AM here, I am getting
ready to leave for the airport,
and this text may be tweaked, but not by me, at least not now.
However, it should be close to what's resubmitted.
Regards
Marshall
On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:46 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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