[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[David Conrad]

Leo,

On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:01 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> RIR's would give out one /48 to any organization that requests one
> and charge them a fee of $100.  There would be no other requirements
> to get space.

That would appear to be what people are arguing for, yes.

> Here's the simple problem, you give up all aggregation day one.

Not really.  The fact that PI /48s are available does not  
automatically mean everyone must obtain them.

> However, were all those customers to have non-aggregateable
> allocations from ARIN then Verizon Business would have no way to
> summarize any of those routes, and would dump (in order of magnitude)
> roughly as many prefixes into the DFZ as are there now.

Two points:

a) huh?  Last I checked, there were 800 IPv6 prefixes being routed
b) I have been told that folks from both Juniper and Cisco have  
stated publicly that they can easily meet short term routing  
requirements and have no concerns about meeting longer term  
requirements.

> I believe were a plan as you describe implemented the number of
> routes in the default free zone would jump by at least one order
> of magnitude overnight, perhaps closer to two orders of magnitude.

In the immortal words of Dr. Peter Venkman, "Human sacrifice, dogs  
and cats living together - mass hysteria."

Even if the RIRs started paying people to take IPv6 prefixes, you  
wouldn't see a jump "jump by at least one order of magnitude  
overnight, perhaps closer to two orders of magnitude."  The fact that  
someone has address space does not mean ISPs must route it.

And, as I understand the discussions, that's sort of the point.   
Since around 1994 or so, the RIRs have been tagged with being the  
routing police.  Now, we're told by router vendors that today,  
routers can handle an order of magnitude more routes than what  
they're currently handling.  As such, the policies created to enable  
RIRs-as-routing-police come into question.

> I do believe though, that you are correct that if we did give
> everyone a /48, there would be no reason for most ISP's to get more
> than a /48 themselves, save perhaps those with large amounts of
> single IP dynamic customers (e.g. Cable Companies) that might
> actually exceed the 65536 subnets available...

More to the point, the allocations of /19s and /20s (and shorter)  
could be seen as egregious and unconscionable wastes of vast tracts  
of address space.

Rgds,
-drc