[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

[Davis, Terry L]

Leo

While I support this, I acknowledge that BGP can't support it.  A couple thoughts:
- To your point on not being able to support every residential user with a PI, maybe we need to look closer at the phone call routing system as they seem to be able to handle it.

- My home is dual-homed already.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 1:15 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
> 
> In a message written on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:58:41PM -0400, Joe Provo
> wrote:
> > I appreciate the intent, but what's the point of yet another
> > unenforcable clause?  Enterprises with multiple private BGP
> > relationships would qualifiy under this and be invisible.
> 
> ARIN actually has a long history of "enforcing" this, the current
> IPv4 criteria has a provision for multi-homed networks to get a
> allocation when single homed networks do not qualify.  I will leave
> staff to comment on how they enforce the criteria.
> 
> With IPv6 we will run out of routing slots before we run out of
> numbers.  Using the sign at the Chinese Buffet as an example:
> 
>   Take all you want, eat all you take.
> 
> Like it or not, the network can't take every residential user having
> their own PI block and routing it.  We don't have routers that can
> support 500 million routes.  We can make a big mess by handing
> things out willy nilly, but just like the dark days of the Internet
> passed the operators will fix it with draconian filtering policies
> that will do no one any good.  Making a mess the operators have to
> fix will create no good will, nor internet stability.
> 
> To that end, I can't support the proposal as written.  As one
> commenter asked, "what if my kids want an IPv6 network to play with
> in their garage?"  Well, we should find some way to accomodate that
> which doesn't require service providers worldwide to spend tens of
> thousands of dollars upgrading routers to hold the routes.
> 
> I realize ARIN does not dictate routing behavior.  However, I can
> tell you how this ends if we get it wrong.  If the table grows too
> fast operators will make their own decisions about "who is worthy".
> I suspect those decisions will be made along the lines of who has
> money to pay to route the prefixes.  If you're worried about your
> kids getting free IP's to play with the you should really worry
> about the $1,000 per month per prefix charge that will come to route
> it to limit table sale.
> 
> I offer up multi-homing as a bar that keeps the number of routes
> manageable.  I'm completely open to other proposals.  I think the 200
> site requirement as it stands now just doesn't work, there are lots of
> large ISP's, who can use a lot of addresses with far fewer than 200
> sites.  But to simply remove it and leave nothing doesn't do anyone any
> favors in the long term.
> 
> --
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/