[ppml] IPv6 initial allocation policy

Randy Bush randy at psg.com
Mon Mar 13 21:02:04 EST 2006

> 1) The number and density of hosts in IPv6 networks is & will be
>    irrelevant.

once upon a time, we thought that of v4.  luckily, history never

> 2) We need to work within the constraints of the existing BGP
>    protocol for the foreseeable future.

thanks for that.

> 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.

this seems to assume that the v6 net is essentially congruent with
the v4 network.  perhaps this assumption is worthy of exploration.

> 4) If a subsequent allocation needs to be made, it should
>    aggregate the current one, not just be adjacent ( needs
>    work)

like the thousands of de-aggregated adjascent /24s are aggregated
today?  not.

> 5) The need for PI space has absolutely nothing to do with the
>    size of the network.

this is a political, not an engineering statement.  while politics
should not be ignored, social theories which are a radical
departure, such as every home should be pi, deserve suspicion.

> 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'.

the reasons for prudence have nothing to do with suppressing the
proletariat.  they are based in a history of problems with address
space turning out not to be infinite and routing churn turning out
to be a serious problem.

> 7) There really is no single global DFZ even today, so approaches
>    that allow pockets of aggregation 'as needed' will not break
>    anything.

can you describe examples of these "pockets of aggregation" as
deployed today?

> 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 arises.

for us to bet on this, the protocols and engineering also "should
be clearly identifiable and allow for future aggregation of early
assignments."  are they?

> 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.

or the chinese.  muslims.  or the christian right.  or the

can we focus on the engineering discussion?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list