[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Stephen Sprunk stephen at sprunk.org
Sun Jun 17 21:22:04 EDT 2007

Thus spake "David Conrad" <drc at virtualized.org>
> On Jun 16, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> a) RIR policies shouldn't be used to attempt to constrain (IPv6)
>>> routing system growth
>> This will be solved in time, when needed, with a Loc/Id split.
> What do you see as the incentive that will be driving the shift to
> the "loc/id split"?

Failure of routers to handle the number of identifiers being handed out.

> Now, if, as you say, the "current yearly 'fee' for ARIN is only a
> $100 US for a /48" (is this actually the case?),

ARIN's current fee for folks who have only direct assignments (of whatever 
protocol(s) or size) is $100/yr.

> it would seem "justification of need" would be superfluous -- there
> is plenty of financial disincentive preventing getting more address
> space than any organization would actually need, particularly
> given the minimum allocation unit can address
> 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 interfaces (or, if you prefer,
> 65536 LANs, each LAN capable of having up to
> 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 interfaces).
> Given no need for RIR policies to try to constrain routing system
> growth and (at least one) /48 IPv6 PI available on request, wouldn't
> a more rational, vastly simpler approach be for the RIRs to simply
> set up a web page that charges $100/year per /48?

Your "given" is currently false.  ARIN policies are influenced by those that 
live in the DFZ (i.e. big ISPs), and since those folks are scared of routing 
growth, ARIN's policies are crafted such that only those folks who "deserve" 
a routing slot get one.  AFAICT, that is not going to change until we get 
the ID/LOC split everyone keeps talking about -- then DFZ players should 
only care about LOC growth, not ID growth.

The current consensus criteria for "deserving" a routing slot can be found 
in the NRPM.

> Further, the rationale for a /32 for ISPs no longer appears to make
> sense.  If everybody can get a /48, why would ISPs need 16 (or more)
> additional bits of address space than everybody else?  Since their
> customers would be bringing their own address space with them, why
> wouldn't they be like every body else and get a /48 and, if
> necessary, get more /48s (at $100/year) for their internal
> infrastructure as they need it?
> I suspect I am missing something.

ISPs need /32s so they can assign /48s or /56s to folks who don't "deserve" 
a routing slot of their own, which current accounts for the vast majority of 
users/orgs on the Internet.

Please note that I'm not necessarily defending the above thinking, just 
explaining it.


Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list