[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
Davis, Terry L
terry.l.davis at boeing.com
Mon Jun 1 09:42:18 EDT 2009
LNP appears to be the model that they are going to have to live with, at least within national boundaries.
And no I sure do NOT want the ITU involved again but my point was that perhaps we need to try to think a bit outside of the box to solve our routing limitations.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Johnson [mailto:bjohnson at drtel.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:24 AM
> To: Davis, Terry L; Leo Bicknell; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
> Two points on the telephone system comparison.
> - Circuit switched networks are entirely different than packet based
> networks when it comes to routing.
> - With the exception of LNP, the telephone numbering scheme is entirely
> hierarchical limiting the number of routes needed.
> On a side note, I'm sure that nobody wants the Internet to start to
> resemble the telephone network. That would be a bad model. (I can hear
> the regulators salivating at the idea.) Not that this isn't already
> starting to happen (sigh). :-|
> - Brian
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> > Behalf Of Davis, Terry L
> > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 8:12 AM
> > To: 'Leo Bicknell'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
> > 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
> > > 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/
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > 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