[ppml] 2005-1 status

Kevin Loch kloch at hotnic.net
Mon Jan 23 17:35:54 EST 2006

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> One possible argument (which I'm not sure I completely subscribe to) is
> that v6 at least has the possibility of multihoming without PI
> space, using shim6.

Having read the shim6 drafts, I don't feel it is currently
a viable substitute for PI.  That may change, or some new technology
may be developed that is a viable substitute.  In any case it's not here 

> The way I see it, shim6 will initially be most viable
> for the smallest sites, the ones that have no chance of getting PI space.
> It will be initially non-viable for large multihomed sites with traffic
> engineering requirements, lots of hosts, and spread out networks.  Those
> sites are the ones doing PI now with v4, and IMO they will continue to
> need the ability to do PI with v6.

I expect the vast majority of applicants would have or qualify for
v4 PI space and pass through that part of the policy.

> So with that in mind, I would argue that ARIN's IPv6 PI policy should
> encourage small multihomed sites to use a non-PI multihoming model (shim6)
> while preserving the ability for large multihomed sites to get PI space
> and multihome the traditional way.

I expect the number of v6 only applicants to be small initially so it
isn't worth spending  much time on that part until we have some
experience with them.

> I'm of the opinion that we should start by letting the larger sites who're
> certain to need PI space get it sooner, and wait to relax the requirements
> later if shim6 can't be extended to meet the TE and management needs of
> intermediate-sized hosts.

That approach was tried at the LA meeting and it was thoroughly
rejected (based on microphone comments rather than votes).

- Kevin

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list