[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Wed Mar 15 22:28:49 EST 2006
Nope, you read it correctly!
The power company will require your electrical systems to be on their
PLC networks in order to control your electrical systems; it would make
a completely unworkable control and routing system for the electric
company to try to map the homeowners ISP assigned networks to your home
You will need to interface to their control center somehow to set your
home systems/load controllers and that could be via any available
networks but the actual controls will need to come in over their
Likewise government would like to give each home a permanent subnet from
"its addresses" for their use especially including advanced EMS services
such that they can handle both 911 and direct fire alarms. I wouldn't
be surprised if in a couple decades, your home City/County has your
properties IP address on your deed.
I already have two ISP's serving my home; cable and DSL both and will
probably add an EVDO link with a third. In my case, because of the
incredibly poor physical plant in my area, neither are very reliable.
Try this list, you can validate it with some of the folks working
- Internet Service Provider
- Entertainment Service Provider
- Home Application Service Provider
- Government Services
- Communication Service Provider
- Power Provider
- Metering Provider
- EMS (911 and fire alarm)
- Security Service Provider
None of these will be a simple single IP address either as most will
have multiple controls or sensors serving your home.
And no your ISP will NOT work as the sole provider of my home IP's!
I'll personally fight that on capital hill! We fought for the right not
to be forced to switch phone numbers when we move and I'm on my 4th (or
5th) ISP serving my home in the last ten years. (AT&T, Earthlink,
Qwest, MSN, Speakeasy, and Comcast, ok 6th) All of which provided me
with new IP's and email addresses which had no relation to any my
previous ones so I had to contact everyone I emailed with and have them
update my email address. Bill paying services make this even worse! It
takes months to get them all updated; one-at-a-time.
This is exactly why I would prefer a local government provided IP that
was associated with my home address that didn't change until I moved!
And I certainly don't want to worry that if I change ISP, 911 or fire
won't be able to find me. Likewise I want to keep my phone number when
I move and my email even if I have to change service providers.
Sorry but my view of the future world has little to do with today's!
From: Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO [mailto:jdhoule at att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 4:13 PM
To: Davis, Terry L
Cc: Lea Roberts; ppml at arin.net
Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
I hope I am reading your last paragraph incorrectly?
Are you suggesting these other entities will "allocate to you a
subnet or an address" for devices on your location?
I would hope not, I would hope you have some number of subnets at
your location and these other entities will want to communicate with
some devices at your location which you have addressed from an
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Davis, Terry L
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Lea Roberts; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
The proposal is fine.
But I am actually hard pressed to imagine a single entity site that will
have only a single local subnet under an IP-v6 architecture. I tend to
believe that IP-v6 architectures will be very different from our
traditional IP-v4 concepts.
My power, entertain, City, and communications company will probably
allocate me one each from there individual spaces but I still think I
will several of my own as I do today.
From: Lea Roberts [mailto:lea.roberts at stanford.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
was just sent in to ARIN... for your additional reading pleasure. /Lea
Policy Proposal 2005-8, version 2:
Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement
This proposal would amend the IPv6 address allocation policies (ARIN's
NRPM, section 6) regarding the definition of the default size of End
Site assignments and the threshold value for End Site allocation
efficiency, no longer assuming the fixed values for End Site
assignments established by RFC3177. Many references to "/48" will
need to be replaced by "End Site assignment".
for example, section 184.108.40.206 should be replaced as follows:
220.127.116.11. Assignment address space size
End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or
ISP. The exact size of the assignment is a local decision for the
LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (when only one
subnet is anticipated for the End Site) up to the normal maximum
of /48, except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger
assignment can be justified.
The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only
- /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
- /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
over the next 5 years.
- /48 for larger sites
For end sites to whom DNS will be delegated, the LIR/ISP should
consider making an assignment on a nibble (4-bit) boundary to allow
to simplify reverse lookup delegation.
RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP
actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the
detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4,
except for the cases described in Section 6.4.4 and for the
purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.
also, section 6.9 will need to be replaced:
6.9. IPv6 Reassignments policy
The size of IPv6 address assignments to End Sites is to be
determined by the ISP/LIR.
ISPs and LIRs may choose whether to make changes to their
procedures for assigning address blocks to End Sites. The threshold
End Site allocation efficiency level is between 20% to 50% for most
ISPs and LIRs when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio. ISPs and LIRs will
need to operate address plans according to this target level of End
Site allocation efficiency.
there's a need to change ARIN NRPM IPv6 Utilization:
The ARIN NRPM Section 6.7 will be amended so its IPv6 allocation
utilization criteria will reflect the use of a /56 as the unit
quantity in the calculation of the ISP or LIR's end site allocation
The current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (section 6
of ARIN's NRPM) indicates that end sites should be allocated a /48 as
a uniform allocation unit if using more than one host or one subnet.
This proposal alters the existing policy regarding LIR and ISP
assignments to End Sites to allow the unit of assignment to be an LIR
or ISP decision.
In assessing the address utilization efficiency for ISPs or LIRs, the
definition of an End Site for the purposes of the calculation of ISP
or LIR End Site allocation efficiency, is to be made according to a /56
This measure, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, in conjunction with
the further measures undertaken by the addressing community regarding
increasing the HD ratio to 0.94, would increase the anticipated useful
lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years, in
which case no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated.
A more detailed rationale is available in Geoff Huston's presentation on
the subject, at RIPE 50, which can be found at:
Appendix A. References
This material is not formally part of the Policy Proposal. It is
here for informational purposes.
1. The IPv6 Address Plan - Geoff Huston
2. Internet Draft: Issues Related to the Management of IPv6 Address
[unfortunately, the ID expired, so use the URL:
3. Internet Draft: IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites - Thomas Narten,
Geoff Huston & Lea Roberts
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML