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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 1, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Brian Johnson wrote:

> Terry,
>
> 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.
>
A more accurate statement would be that prior to cell-phones and LNP
across disparate networks, the telephone numbering scheme WAS entirely
hierarchical, limiting the number of routes needed.

Today, the telephone number you dial is actually more akin to a domain
name which is looked up in the SS7 database to determine an actual
topological locator to which the call is routed.  These topological  
locators
remain 100% hierarchical limiting the routing required, and, this model
could actually serve as a good model for an ID/Locator split type of
internet routing.

> 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). :-|
>
On one hand, I agree.  The over-regulated system of settlements and
forced exchange routing would be bad for the internet.  However, the
technical solution applied to make LNP possible is one where I think
the internet could at least learn a little.

Owen

> - Brian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
>> 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
> 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/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.