[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Steve Bertrand<steve at ibctech.ca> wrote:
>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6
>> Allocation Process
>
> FWIW, I oppose this policy.
>
> I firmly believe that in no way should any IPv6 allocation/assignment
> considerations be related whatsoever to IPv4.
> It is not fair, and it is not practical.

Hi Steve,

Would you support the proposal if the lines allowing large IPv4
holders to skip the /48 level and go straight to /32 were removed?
That's the only place IPv4 is mentioned. Would you remove them
entirely and make everyone start with a /48 or would you replace them
with some other criteria that was not tied to IPv4 specifically?


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:31 PM, <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
> This proposal raises the spector of being forced to renumber at
> some point in the future.
> If adopted this is a deal breaker as far as implimenting IPV6 for the next
> few years.

Hi Larry,

As an ISP you probably already hold a /18 of IPv4 space. As a result,
you would be qualified for a /32 immediately under the proposed
policy. You would later be qualified for an additional /24 *without*
returning the /32 or renumbering any of your customers. Nothing in the
policy would ever require you to renumber out of either the /32 or the
/24.

If you bought another ISP's assets with another /32, you would have to
renumber those acquisition customers into your /32 in order to later
get the /24.

Does that affect your opinion any? Or would you still be opposed
because of the requirement to renumber out of space you acquired
through acquisitions?



On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> I guess I'm asking do you think router speed increases have hit a plateau?
>  That over the next 10 years we won't see anything much faster?

Hi Ted,

No, we haven't plateaued. Router capacity is increasing and while I
haven't collected the data to prove a trend as a companion to my bgp
cost piece, I'm pretty sure the cost per announced prefix is slowly
coming down. However, the route count is increasing faster than the
cost per route is falling, so the overhead cost of the system as a
whole is going up.

> OK, well go back to my original question, then.  I asked if router advances
> would eliminate the need for filtering (or limiting the table)

Eventually. That's what the IRTF RRG is all about: identifying those
advances. But it won't happen in a useful time frame for a 2009
discussion of IPv6 address policy.


On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 6:39 PM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
> it is disturbing to see the distinction between ISP
> and non-ISP allocations being blurred like this.

Michael,

Blurred nothing. I kicked the it to curb. This proposal makes no
distinction whatsoever between ISPs and anyone else. And eliminating
preferential treatment based on a frequently artificial distinction
doesn't disturb me at all.


> Not to mention that the complexity raises new barriers
> to getting IPv6 addresses which is not the way we should
> be heading.

What complexity? You're multihomed? You qualify. Done.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004