[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process - revised
mcr at sandelman.ca
Fri Dec 11 21:57:05 EST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "David" == David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> writes:
David> - Needs Basis
David> First and probably most important from my personal point of
David> view, I don't see a needs basis in this policy, even in the
David> classful IPv4 days you had to demonstrate need to get a Class
David> B, or Class A; I believe that you had to demonstrate a need
In those days was very little required to get a /24.
And, lots of organizations *DID* get /8s in those days, recall.
As long as:
David> So, I believe this proposal would need some kind of needs
David> basis. Maybe something as simple as, to get a /32 provide a
David> creditable business plan for more than 200 sites in two
David> years, and for a /40 more than 1 site, for a /48 a site with
David> more than 256 host, and anyone my request a /56.
The last part is there (/56), then I agree with the need for a minimal
David> - This could encourage the Big Guys to filter the little
David> guys, by maybe making it to easy for them to do so.
Doesn't matter. IPv6 encourages a site to have multiple prefixes.
Officially, that's the way to multihome (until shim6 either works or
fails), and now that site-locals are gone, there is nothing else to use
The /56s won't be seen in the routing table, and *THAT IS A GOOD THING*
David> - As a result, this could encourage the smaller guys to try
David> to get bigger blocks than they really need in order to
David> justify having a routing slot and not being filtered.
That's where we are now.
David> - This would make ARIN's IPv6 policies way different than all
David> the other RIRs.
David> William partially answered this; paraphrasing his answer,
David> maybe we shouldn't shift the whole world all at once. There
David> might be an advantage for one RIR to go down this road first.
David> - 6.10.1 Micro-allocations for Critical Infrastructure are
David> not moot and should be preserved, this allows network
David> operators to create special filtering rule, if they wish, for
David> these Critical Infrastructures. It seems prudent to keep
David> some special ranges such as these. Maybe they should be
David> renamed to Critical Infrastructure Allocations. The term
David> micro-allocations probably doesn't fit anymore, but they are
David> still Critical Infrastructure.
It's just a special extra pool of /48s or /56s, it's not a big deal.
David> intractable ones. Are there some incremental steps we can
David> take toward this vision, without jumping off the cliff into a
David> brave but unknown new world?
David> How about creating PI /40 allocations for small providers and
David> PI /40 assignments for large multi-site end-users, and
David> blessing providers to make similar PA assignments. In
David> Dearborn we couldn't get consensus to change the 200 customer
David> in two year justification required to get a /32. And there is
David> nothing explicit for larger multi-site end users either. A
David> /40 seems to fit the bill.
okay, I can live with this.
David> One last reminder;
David> If you have opinions or arguments why the AC should or should
David> not put this proposal on its docket you should speak up by
David> the middle of next week.
David> Thank you for your participation.
Thanks for bringing this back up.
I would like to see the AC proceed with this.
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ARIN-PPML