[arin-ppml] questions about AC decision re: 103.
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Tue Dec 22 18:53:33 EST 2009
I'll take a crack at this "needs issue" from a different angle.
Since I'm in the edge of critical infrastructure numerous ways every, I guess I'd point out a few things in the way of re-addressing that we don't really think about:
- When would be a good time for your local hospital to re-address its Emergency Room and ICU?
- If a small biotec company has to re-address its control systems, when is a good time? An outage to their control systems, could destroy years of work.
- The company supplying your local water? (not nearly all of them are public)
- The local small power company providing your power?
- The local industry that has highly specialized control systems to enable a highly robotic process with very high close tolerances on its products? What's the cost of failure?
- The local irrigation district? (The ditch rider is now a SCADA system and every farm depends on it!)
- What about my community bank; am I comfortable with the risk to my account access if they have to change?
- What about my city government? It's intelligent (?) traffic control systems? Some still run their own 911 services. ??
- A small regional food distributor? (How time can they be out before their stocks spoil?)
- The local company that provide fire and security monitoring to your business or home?
- The local company that provides all the web sites for businesses in your community?
Just visually walk down your community's main street and try to imagine what re-addressing might mean to any one of them!
We make this crazy assumption that our business models function as they did before the Internet. They DON'T! We live in a 7x24 world now; our businesses, our livelihood, and our own personal safety depend on the Internet, 7x24 with at least 4 9's reliability.
The PA concept is so broken in this context that I can find no way to defend it; I understand it at a technical level but that does not translate to the real world we live in.
And we wonder why we cannot get IPv6 deployed?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of David Farmer
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:27 PM
> To: Michael Richardson
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] questions about AC decision re: 103.
> Michael Richardson wrote:
> >>>>>> "Member" == Member Services <info at arin.net> writes:
> > Member> 103. Change IPv6 Allocation Process 104. Multiple Discrete
> > Member> Networks for proposal 103
> > Member> The AC stated, "The ARIN Advisory Council determined to
> > Member> abandon Policy Proposal #103: Change IPv6 Allocation
> > Member> Process. While the AC perceives there is significant
> > Member> support for major revisions to IPv6 policy, the AC could not
> > Member> support this proposal in its current form. The majority of
> > Member> the AC felt the only way they could move this proposal
> > Member> forward would have been to modify it in ways not perceived
> > Member> as compatible with the author's original intent. The AC
> > Member> would like to work with the author and the rest of community
> > Member> to develop future IPv6 policy proposals.
> > Can we get a clear statement of:
> > 1) what does the AC feel they need to do?
> > 2) what does the AC feel the author's intent is?
> > 3) is the "classful" nature of the proposal a sticking point?
> I am not speaking for the whole AC, and I'm not sure how clear this will
> all actually be either. As one of the shepherds for this proposal I
> attempted to distill a number of points that were being discussed, at
> least by some of the members of the AC. I refer you to my email of
> December 11th for that.
> To that I will add, that while not directly part of the proposal, the
> fee structure example in the rational was also at least partially an
> issue discussed.
> I will reiterate, I believe the biggest issue was the lack of a "needs
> basis". I don't believe "efficient utilization" is necessarily a proper
> measure of "operational need" in IPv6. But, neither is how big of a
> check you can write a proper measure of "operational need". Personally,
> I'm OK with it being part of the equation, but there most be something
> more to it than just that.
> I don't believe the classful nature was that much of an issue, at least
> for me personally. The current IPv6 policy is rather classful already,
> at least from my point of view, /32s and /48s seem a lot like Class As
> and Bs to me. But, I must say I wasn't comfortable with /24s being
> handed out as loosely as was being proposed. It just doesn't seem
> right, my best example is how some people feel today about some of the
> original Class A or /8 allocations, to major corporations.
> What are the options from here;
> 1. Bill or someone else could appeal the AC decision, see the original
> email for the details.
> 2. We can discuss changing Bill's proposal and then resubmit it. As one
> of the AC shepherds for this proposal, I believe it is my role to help
> facilitate this option, if there is interest in this at least in the
> near term. Or;
> 3. We could drop this discussion and look at other ideas.
> Independent of those options and more broadly where do I think we go
> from here? Shorter-term (for the Toronto PPM) I believe we need
> proposals to;
> 1. Rewrite 18.104.22.168; to better specify qualifications to be an ISP or LIR
> and get a /32. A lot of people don't like the 200 end-site definition
> that is there today. This discussion started back in Dearborn and
> PP#101 is one option for this.
> 2. Rewrite 22.214.171.124; Currently end-user policy for IPv6 depends on IPv4
> 3. Either as part of #2 or separately, I want to propose a separate IPv6
> pool for assignments that are not intended to be part of the
> hierarchically routed global Internet.
> Longer-term (beyond the Toronto PPM, maybe with an open discussion at
> the Toronto PPM)), I believe we must to figure out what "operation need"
> and "needs basis" really means for IPv6 and maybe revisit HD-Ratios and
> really rethink IPv6 policy altogether. But, I'm not sure any of these
> are will be ready for policy for a little while.
> I would hope other AC members will express their opinions too.
> But, also the minutes for the AC meetings do get posted at the following
> link, usually a few weeks after the meeting. But given the holidays, I
> expect it will be a little longer for this one. So, next month sometime
> look for the minutes of the December 17th Advisory Council meeting. The
> minutes for the AC meetings up to, but not including, the one last week
> have been posted;
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML