[ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Mon Mar 13 18:30:00 EST 2006
Lets start with what we do know:
1) The number and density of hosts in IPv6 networks is & will be irrelevant.
2) We need to work within the constraints of the existing BGP protocol for
the foreseeable future.
3) As long as IPv4 is run in parallel, the number of subnets will be the
same because it would be too hard to explain to ops how it works otherwise.
4) If a subsequent allocation needs to be made, it should aggregate the
current one, not just be adjacent (188.8.131.52 needs work)
5) The need for PI space has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the
6) The only reason for having any measure is to preclude the masses from
taking global routing slots; though specifically RIR policies 'say nothing
about routability of the assignments'.
7) There really is no single global DFZ even today, so approaches that allow
pockets of aggregation 'as needed' will not break anything.
8) The number of PI entries and the capabilities of routers will evolve over
time, so whatever approach is taken now it should be clearly identifiable
and allow for future aggregation of early assignments if/when/where the need
The fundamental point of discussion is 6. At the end of the day ARIN needs
to come to grips with the conflicting viewpoint that they 'don't talk about
routability' while at the same time saying 'if you want an assignment that
might take up a global routing slot you have to play by our rules'. When/if
that gets resolved then we can consider how to accomplish 8 in the context
In the mean time we could discuss the relative importance of putting
something in place before it becomes an issue for the ITU to bolster their
drive to take over global IPv6 assignments.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dul
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 2:23 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net>
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy
> > Sent: 13 Mar '06 13:53
> > Given the burn rate on the remaining IPv4 pool and the length of time
> > takes to get agreement on policies, the math doesn't really support an
> > biased approach.
> What text/policy would you support for IPv6 PI space to end sites? If
> I seem to remember at the ARIN last meeting there was absolutely no
> agreement on the proposed policies which used IPv6 language to define
> requirements for end site organizations. Number of hosts, number of
> subnets, etc...
> I agree that IPv4 and IPv6 are different and we probably shouldn't tie the
> two together, however we know and understand IPv4 allocation requirements.
> Creating a policy that builds on this knowledge seems likely to have the
> greatest possibility of achieving consensus, since I don't think we know
> what IPv6 networks will look like at this point.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML