[ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Oct 25 16:34:08 EDT 2007

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Stephen Sprunk
>Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 1:24 PM
>To: Steve Bertrand; bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
>Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv6 assignment - proposal for change to nrpm
>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").

The devil is in the definition of need.

I have 10 point to point T1s.  I need 10 IPv4 /24s since I assign a /24 to
each circuit.  That is the problem, you see.

"Need" is elastic.  If someone is fighting for every /24 they can get,
they might even be using unnumbered, grudging even 4 IP addresses for
their point to point links.

I just did a support call this morning with a customer who has a
site down in SBCGlobal territory.  They needed a static IP on a DSL
line.  They were assigned a /29.  SBC uses Westell DSL model 2701
DSL modems that are configured in these instances to act as routers,
burning up 4 IP numbers at minimum (assuming the customer used a /30
mask, which they aren't doing)  So, while all the customer
needed was a single public IP on their firewall, and their firewall
could speak pppoe, the setup is the sbcglobal Westell speaks PPP to
SBC and wastes a /29 on it's ethernet interface.

It's incredibly wasteful.  Why are they doing this?  Beats me - but
do ya think it might have something to do with the possibility that
those numbers are out of and SBC is doing some hedging

How much would anyone want to bet me that in 5 years if the customer
still has that line, that SBC will be knocking on their door telling them
they can renumber into a /32 and "save a bunch of money"

What, no one willing to take any sucker bets?

>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.

In a perfect world, yes.  But when you actually start LOOKING at what
the hell is HAPPENING out in the real world you will turn up PLENTY
of stories like the one I just cited, and I think you will be getting
the sticks out and tossing the carrots a lot faster than you think.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list