[arin-ppml] A modest proposal for IPv6 address allocations

[Garry Dolley]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 03:05:58PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> So here's a crazy plan:
> 
> A. The first IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /48. To justify it,
> you need to be multihomed. There are no other qualifications. The /48
> will be allocated from a pool from which only /48's are allocated.
> 
> B. The second IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /32. To justify it
> you need to demonstrate that you've efficiently used the /48 for some
> reasonable definition of efficient, that you've implemented SWIP or
> RWHOIS for your downstream assignments and that you will run out of
> space in the /48 within one year. The /32 will be allocated from a
> pool reserved for allocating /32's.
> 
> C. The third IPv6 allocation from ARIN is always a /24. To justify it
> you need to demonstrate that you've efficiently used the /32, that you
> will run out of space in the /32 within five years, and you have to
> first return the original /48 you were assigned. The /24 will be
> allocated from a pool reserved for allocating /24's.
> 
> D. There is no fourth IPv6 allocation at this time. It is not
> presently possible to consume an entire /24 without atrocious waste.
> 
> What are the consequences of this plan?
> 
> 1. Efficient allocation of IP addresses. Orgs get what they need when
> they need it and not before without a great deal of guesswork about
> actual need.
> 
> 2. Efficient utilization of BGP routing slots. No single multihomed
> org will ever announce more than 2 necessary routes.
> 
> 3. Traffic engineering routes are trivially filterable since any route
> longer than the published allocation size can be presumed to be
> traffic engineering, not a downstream multihomed customer, thus you
> can filter distant small routes with confidence and ease.
> 
> 4. No need to define the difference between ISP and not ISP. Everybody
> plays by the same rules.
> 
> 5. No complicated analysis for the first allocation. You're either
> multihomed or you're not. If you're multihomed, you qualify.
> 
> 6. For those who can live within the /48 there are distinct
> advantages: no swip or rwhois reporting and the generic end-user
> annual fee instead of the ISP annual fee. Once you're up to a /32, you
> pay the ISP annual fee. As a result, ARIN doesn't have to scrutinize
> the /32 requests too closely either.
> 
> Thoughts? Criticisms?

While I like the effort to simplify the current policy, I don't
think this would actually work in practice.  To see why, I'd like to
point out the following:

  1. RFC 3177, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites"
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177

  2. RFC 5375, "IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations"
     http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5375

Everyone who is participating in these policy debates should read
these.

Basically, for organizations who are assigning IPv6 space to other
organizations, and aggregating that space to their upstreams, really
do need a /32 to begin with.  This is because all their downstream
assignments will be /48's (RFC 3177).

If they were only allowed to get a /48 to begin with, they couldn't
assign any further /48's.

-- 
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