[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?

Take care

> -----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.
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-December/015819.html
> 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; 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; Currently end-user policy for IPv6 depends on IPv4
> policy.
> 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;
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html
> --
> ===============================================
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list