[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