[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:09:17AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> >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.

Everyone, no.  However, would you not agree a lot of people who
don't try for PI today because it's hard/complicated/expensive would
be more inclined to get it if it were as easy as filling out a web
page and sending in a check for $100?

> a) huh?  Last I checked, there were 800 IPv6 prefixes being routed

Entirely the wrong metric.  We're in a start-up mode.  Since we're
likely to see a relatively full transition to IPv6 in under 5 years,
looking at the start up figure now is worthless.  There will be
somewhere between the number of AS's allocated and the number of
current IPv4 routes in the DFZ in the future IPv6 DFZ, and that's
the interesting number.

> 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.

And yet, the major operators keep standing up and telling the RIR
community it's BS.  I think there are three major factors why the two do
not intersect:

1) Operators want to hold on to legacy hardware longer than they
   probably should, so in many cases are constrained by 2-3
   generations back in routing gear.
2) Vendors believe that since their current product, introduced last
   month can do the job that operators should just swap out their entire
   network in the next 6 months and be happy.
3) Customers are pushing for technologies like Layer 3 VPN's which are
   eating up routing slots in the new wizbang hardware far faster than DFZ
   growth.

> 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.

I disagree.  If we put a policy like this in place before the rush
to get IPv6 space really hits in a big way I think you would find
the IPv6 DFZ would surpass the IPv4 DFZ in a matter of 2-3 years
after the rush starts.  I'm not sure that's a problem if it happened
slowly, but if over 2 years ISP's go from having to route 200,000
IPv4 prefixes to 200,000 IPv4 + 400,000 IPv6, that alone will be
quite painful.  Step functions are hard on budgets and people.
I think in the 5-10 year timeframe you would easily be one order of
magnitude larger than our current predictions for DFZ growth.

> 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.

On this point we are in violent agreement.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070618/ef47d3ec/attachment.sig>