[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Steve Bertrand" <steveb at eagle.ca>
>> i suspect the hoarding will be an unfortunate sideeffect of the /32
>> v6 allocation size.  sort of like the hoarding done by those
>> unfortunate souls who only needed 6 v4 addresses but were
>> "forced" to take more (a /24 if they were lucky, a /20 if they were
>> not) by their address registry.
>>
>> its not exactly fair to force people to take more addresses than
>> they need and then berate them for hoarding... is it?
>
> Interesting insight.

IMHO, a misapplication of the term "hoarding", which I interpreted as being 
a sarcastic comment, not an actual accusation.  (Michael: If I read that 
wrong, please let me know so I can flame you.)

> I, operating a small ISP as others here, directly requested a smaller
> than /32 IPv6 block, because I knew that we would almost certainly
> never need it, but it was forced upon us anyway.

Right.  One of the goals in IPv6 policy is minimizing routes in the DFZ, and 
it's easiest to do that if everyone (or nearly everyone) has the same size 
blocks because it's easy to filter deaggregates that way.  While a /32 is 
way, way too large for most LIRs, it's large enough that nearly all LIRs
will fit in it, it's a convenient number, and everyone can filter anything
longer than /32 (except in the PIv6 block, where it's /48) with impunity
unless they specifically want deaggregates.  Since we have absolutely no
clue how to route the half a billion /32s in 2000::/3, there is no reason to
give out longer prefixes -- and plenty of reasons not to.

> Receiving such a large address space makes it very difficult in the
> justification side of things (some would have no choice but to lie on
> the application, just to get ANY IPv6 addresses). I only received the
> allocation because of the designation that I have (ISP). Yes, we
> provide Internet services, but in terms of size, I'm no where near
> even that of 'enterprise'. I'll never use the IP's, so apparently,
> I'll be hoarding them.

I wouldn't use that term.  If you have the smallest allocation/assignment
that you need or that can be issued, you can't be "hoarding", IMHO.

> In regard to Bill's second statement above, it sounds like a lot of
> people are doing exactly this (damning them as hoarders) for legacy
> IPv4 holders...doesn't it? When push comes to shove, why would one
> give up what was given to them, especially when they vehemently tried
> to state it wasn't warranted/needed. (I know this is going OT, but an
> opinion would be nice)

I don't think anyone's faulting legacy folks for the inefficiencies of
classful assignments.  What I see them being faulted for is that now, when
VLSM and CIDR make giving back possible, many of them are choosing not to. 
(I'd say "most", but I don't think "most" have been asked yet and are likely 
unaware of the problem facing the RIRs soon.)  Some are knowingly hoarding 
address space in anticipation of financial gain, aka speculation, and opting 
out of the need-based system the community has endorsed and which gave them 
those oversize (due to inefficiency) assignments in the first place.

> Although we (the small SP's) have signed a v6 RSA, are we going
> to get the same ridicule and harassment in the future that the
> Legacy IPv4 folk are seeing today?

The "ridicule and harassment" is coming from a very small group of
unfortunately vocal people.  The rest of us are trying to be polite and
merely ask that legacy folks give back what they don't need (even using very 
liberal definitions of "need").  If we did a straw poll of folks favoring
carrots vs. sticks, I'm quite sure the former would outnumber the latter by
an overwhelming margin.

And, to be pragmatic, the fact that all v6 allocations are under RSA (as you 
mentioned) means that ARIN could "fix" the situation with blanket /32s in 
IPv6 if it ever became necessary, unlike the inability to "fix" legacy IPv4
assignments.  I hope that never comes to pass, and I don't see at present
how it could, but ARIN is covered just in case.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking