[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

Davis, Terry L terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Thu Mar 16 17:55:30 EST 2006


Responses below.

(All, apologies for the formatting.  My responses are between the ++++

Take care

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard, W. Lee [mailto:Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:45 PM
To: Davis, Terry L
Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
Subject: RE: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Davis, Terry L
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:29 PM
> To: Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO
> Cc: ppml at arin.net; bookeym at pachenalight.com
> Subject: Re: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
> Joe
> 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 load controller.

Why?  They have to have a table mapping (IP) address to (home) address,
so why does it matter if the IP address is theirs?
If they don't go directly to the home, they will constantly be:
- Unable to connect due home firewall/network changes
- Have to deal with an IP churn rate per home that will force them to
change approaching 20% of their entries annually because someone either
moves or change service providers.
- Will have to require their customers ALSO get an ISP to get load
control service. 

> 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
> networks.

I'm trying to understand your position:  The power company needs to
build its own IP network in order to manage power systems at each
home; their IP address assignments will be from their aggregatable

> 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 would be surprised.  IP addresses are not property, and are not
transferable in that sense.  
We will see how it develops.  My guess is that EMS will win although
with IP-v6 they could certainly allocate the address portion of the
space themselves to the property permanently and allow the network
portion to change.

> 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
> community networking:
> - 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.

Would a /64 be sufficient for each, do you think?  Especially if
they're not from a single aggregate block, this would be important
to understand.
I would certainly think so.

> And no your ISP will NOT work as the sole provider of my home IP's!
> I'll personally fight that on capital hill!  

This is the place to fight for that, not Capitol Hill.  
I'd like to think so but history seems to say otherwise.

> 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.

Just to make sure I understand your position:
You'd rather have nine provider aggregated addresses (counting networks
above) than one (PI or PA) address?
I think that is what will happen.  Whether I care or not depends on how
well they can hide the details.  Regardless which option wins, we cannot
expect the average homeowner to be able to deal IP networking detail at
this level.

There are some differences here.  Your choice of local phone carriers
has been extremely limited.  The local carrier has physical facilities
to your house; now the cable company and power company also have 
facilities.  An ISP provides a service using those facilities.  They
may provide multiple services, including routing (pretty essential, and
requiring aggregatable addressing) and maybe also email, but these are 
disjoint: there's no reason your Internet access provider has to be your
email provider.  
Agreed but what we have to do is figure out how to provide the homeowner
at stable set of logical addresses (email/web/voice/etc) that map their
physical ones.  Otherwise I am certain that local government will win

> 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!

I must have misunderstood your previous points then.  There are a lot
of points to take away from this sentence:
1.  "Local" government meaning city, county, state, federal, or some
kind of regional Internet registry?
The first four although the fifth could work.

2.  You want a government authority to replace the current system of IP
address allocation?  Can you outline the ways in which this is superior
to the current system?
NO, but that is what I will probably get.  The reason is simple; they
can provide me with a stable set of logical relationships that map to my
physical home.  A present this is simply not possible for a service
provider to do.

3.  How would IP addresses be "associated with my home address"?
Do you envision embedding physical address information in the IP 
address, like GPS coordinates, or a database owned and operated by the
I think that either GPS or a government DB is most likely.

4.  How would routing work?  Would every network have to carry a
Separate route for every home?   Or do you mean that local governments
should take over all Internet access?
In the scenario I envision occurring, local government just becomes
another "service provider" and each of the home service providers does
their own routing.

> 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!

That's fair to say.  I don't quite understand whether you favor
competition, monopolization, or nationalization.  I'm hoping you can
clarify how routing might work in your vision.  I definitely advise
you to take advantage of one of the many companies providing free 
email, so that you don't have to go through the pain of updating your
contacts next time you switch ISPs.  Or you can set up your own mail
server, of course.
I'm in favor of a solution that provides the home owner or individual
with a set of "stable" logical relationships.  I certainly won't go
through a "free email provider" as I need them to both be around for the
long term and to be responsible.  As an example, I keep paying MSN
monthly even though I have no used them as an ISP for over five years;
this is simply to provide my wife a stable email for a large non-profit
group she works with.  It is that important!


> Take care
> Terry
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> Terry:
>    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
> aggregated block.  
>    Right?
> Joe Houle
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> Lea
> 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.
> Take care
> Terry
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 should be replaced as follows:
> 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
> guidelines):
>    - /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
>    efficiency.
> Rationale:
> 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
> size.
> 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:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-50/presentations/ripe50
> -plenary-w
> ed-ipv6-roundtable-report.pdf
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Appendix A. References
> This material is not formally part of the Policy Proposal. It is
> included
> here for informational purposes.
> 1. The IPv6 Address Plan - Geoff Huston
> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-07/ipv6size.html
> 2. Internet Draft: Issues Related to the Management of IPv6 Address
> Space -
> Thomas Narten
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipv6/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6-consi
> 00.txt
> [unfortunately, the ID expired, so use the URL:
> http://www.cs.duke.edu/~narten/ietf/draft-narten-iana-rir-ipv6
> tions-00.txt]
> 3. Internet Draft: IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites - 
> Thomas Narten,
> Geoff Huston & Lea Roberts
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-
> -01.txt
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list