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

[Garry Dolley]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:15:02PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 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.

Exactly.  There's really no reason I should bear the cost of
carrying your route because your kids want to learn about IPv6.  I
wholeheartedly want to support learning about IPv6, esp. for the next
generation of network operators, but doing so in a way that taxes
third party network hardware, for no reason, is not the way to do it.

Might I suggest ULAs? [1]

> 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.

Once again, spot on.  

ARIN is acting as a regulatory body.  If ARIN doesn't do this, then
regulation falls on the private corporations to "police themselves"
and make their own rules.  And if the situation with the banking
industry in the United States is any indication, leave it up to the
corporations to police themselves, and it'll end up where the
highest bidder is the winner, "best practices" are thrown out the
window in favor "they are willing to pay $XXXX, make it work", and
other "for profit" / "profit first" non-sense.

I want ARIN to put up the barrier to entry on /32 prefixes, because
if they don't, the multi-million dollar ISPs will start making their
own rules.


1. RFC 4193, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193

-- 
Garry Dolley
ARP Networks, Inc. | http://www.arpnetworks.com | (818) 206-0181
Data center, VPS, and IP Transit solutions
Member Los Angeles County REACT, Unit 336 | WQGK336
Blog http://scie.nti.st