[ppml] 2005-1 status

Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Tue Jan 24 10:17:43 EST 2006

> > Why should the method of sizing these v6 blocks be
> > ANY different than the existing method of sizing 
> > v6 blocks? Either these applicants are LIRs and
> > get a /32 or they are not and they get a /48 unless
> > they can show that they are VERY LARGE SUBSCRIBERS.
> I assume you mean v4 in your second reference in the above paragraph?

No, I mean v6 where I wrote v6.

> I don't think the argument is about PI block size.  Rather, it is about
> making PI space available to end-sites...Only once that hurdle is 
> can a discussion of PI block size be entertained and given that the 
> size for PA to end-sites starts at a base of /48 and gets larger with
> justification, there may be no issue.

Right, there are two hurdles here.

The first one is whether or not ARIN should give
v6 PI allocations to organizations who currently
have v4 PI allocations. Once that hurdle is crossed,
we need to decide how big these PI allocations should

Noting that the v6 policy gives out /32 blocks to
LIRs, i.e. organizations that have an ironclad case
for PI space, I wonder why 2005-1 does not specify
a /32. Of course, the v6 policy also discusses 
assigning /48 blocks to sites so if these v4 PI
holders are a single site, then /48 would be appropriate.
The existing policy only allows for shorter prefixes
like /44 in the case of VERY LARGE SUBSCRIBERS.

So, the existing policy defines a world in which there
are lots of /32 routes globally, lots of /48 routes
in a more local context (one provider's IBGP) and 
no other prefix lengths.

Do we have a good reason to add a new standard prefix
size to the mix? If so, then what are the criteria
for defining this size?

I think that too many policy proposals come before us
without adequate explanation of their relation to the
existing policy set and without adequate explanation 
for the specific things that they change. There is too
much off-the-cuff proposal writing and off-the-cuff
analysis of proposals.

It's all well and good to have a higher motivation
like enabling existing v4 PI users to get v6 PI space
with no fuss. But the details have to be thought through
and explained and justified.

Note, that I have not stated whether I am for or against
2005-1. That is not the point. I am trying to steer the
discussion away from joining one camp or another and
get to the meat of the matter. This is not party politics.
This is technical policymaking.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list