[ppml] 2005-1 status

Bill Darte billd at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 25 08:28:58 EST 2006


Nice post.... focuses attention on renumbering.
I reiterate Scott's inquiry into the 'real' issues of renumbering
difficulty...
Is it total numbers of devices, statically addresses servers, firewall
configs, router configs.
What makes it hard to renumber?

bd

> IMO, 2005_1_orig does not *just* make IPv6 PI space available 
> to anyone who qualifies for IPv4 PI space, it goes much 
> further (too far IMO).
> 
> With IPv4, a small organization that wants to multihome with 
> BGP usually gets a /24 from one or both of their ISPs, and 
> announces that space to both of them.  In the US, most tier1 
> networks accept such /24's from their peers, but some do not. 
>  However, those networks, and any networks (such as those 
> overseas) with more aggressive filters, can still access the 
> small organization, even in failover scenarios.  This is 
> because they still have the allocating ISP's aggregate 
> netblock in their table, and the allocating ISP receives the 
> customer's /24 announcement either from the customer directly 
> or from the customer's other ISP in a failover scenario.
> 
> If this small organization wishes to switch ISPs, he will 
> have to renumber.  This likely involves changing router 
> configurations, DHCP server configurations, and server and 
> DNS configurations for a small number of statically addressed 
> servers.  In most cases this can be done without interrupting service.
> 
> If this small organization grows to the point where 
> renumbering would become an undue burden (defined by current 
> policy 4.2.2.2 as having efficiently utilized two /24's), he 
> can request PI space from ARIN.  Once he renumbers into that 
> PI space, he needn't ever renumber those hosts again, as his 
> PI space is portable.
> 
> In the IPv6 world, I think we need a similar policy.  IMO 
> 2005_1_orig is not it.  2005_1_orig would allow the smallest 
> multihomed organizations to get PI space to start with, 
> essentially forcing everyone in the default-free zone to 
> carry their routes or lose connectivity to them.  A better 
> policy would be to adopt the same sort of policy for IPv6 we 
> have for IPv4, which would require small organizations, for 
> whom renumbering is a small burden, to multihome with PA 
> space initially.  Once such an organization grows to the 
> point where renumbering would become a significant burden, it 
> should be eligible to apply for PI space.
> 
> IMO the differences in recommended numbering practices 
> between IPv4 and IPv6 require us to measure renumbering 
> difficulty differently.  Does anyone have any good 
> information on what the obstacles to renumbering are in IPv6? 
>  Not having done so myself, I can only speculate that 
> difficulty of renumbering is a function of the number of IPv6 
> subnets in use (which will have to be renumbered in router 
> configuration or DHCP) and the number of statically 
> configured IPv6 hosts (each of which would need to be 
> reconfigured either on the host itself or in DHCP, then 
> updated in DNS).
> 
> Could a reasonable policy be written that makes a site 
> eligible for PI space once it has either a certain number of 
> subnets (discrete physical broadcast domains) in use, and/or 
> has a certain number of statically configured IPv6 hosts 
> (which would presumably each be pointed to by a discrete AAAA 
> record in the DNS)?
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On 01/24/06 at 3:57pm -0500, Marshall Eubanks 
> <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list