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

[Garry Dolley]

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 04:33:43PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > Stacy Hughes wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone, Chuck precisely makes one of my points here.  When I
> >> voted against this concept last time around, I felt just like Ted. 
> >> Like, you're not a real ISP or player if you don't have 200 customers.  
> > 
> > I never said that.  As I mentioned in the response to the NoX question,
> > there is already a micro allocation policy that applies to them.
> > 
> >> But there are real ISPs that are small that deserve the minimum
> >> allocation of IPv6 just as much as the 200+ers.  If we want everyone
> >> participating in IPv6, we must make sure they can get it - especially
> >> ISPs, large and small.
> > 
> > If they are real ISPs that are small then it is not that much of a
> > burden for them to get their IPv6 from an upstream and reassigning
> > it to their customers.  If they are
> > multihomed then nothing is stopping them from advertising that block.
> > Granted, there will be a larger advertisement for the block their
> > smaller block is part of out there but that shouldn't matter.  It
> > certainly doesn't matter for IPv4 since before we got our IPv4 space
> > in 2004 we used non-portable IPv4 space in this fashion with no problems.
> 
> In IPv4 land it's a huge problem (to me) because you have to give PA
> space back and renumber into PI space in order to ever qualify for more
> PI space. As much as everyone things renumbering is a big deal, it is. I
> *still* have customers asking why PA space from an upstream I dropped
> over three years ago doesn't work. Even further back, people are still
> hitting my test bed I set up while I was still in college; talk about
> out of date. I have no idea where they find those old addresses.
> Renumbering is a headache that never ends.

Yeah, renumbering sucks.  I've gone through that dance time and time
again.

But ya know what, it is a cost that the org renumbering has to bear.
It is certainly more fair than everyone else having to bear the cost
of more expensive hardware because people want this panacea of
getting an initial PI space and "never having to renumber"

If you get an end-user /48, you may never need to renumber anyway.

Renumbering is a growing pain, but once completed, you're in a
better spot.

> > By contrast, the problem of table bloat in routers is very real.  You
> > are essentially asking thousands of orgs out there to put money into
> > tens of thousands of routers out there to replace them with new gear
> > that will hold and manage a fantastically gigantic IPv6 table, just to
> > make it a slight bit easier for small orgs to advertise a /32, who
> > have absolutely no use for a /32 and would be happy with a /48, and
> > who are getting the /32 because they are still scared to death about the
> > old renumbering bugaboo - which doesn't even exist with IPv6 anyway.
> 
> I tried to make the same point. Routers with a lot of TCAM space are
> horribly expensive. Many people have already bought equipment expected
> to last for the next X years (where X is greater than 1) and it's
> already inadequate. Bleh. Besides, there's no reason a small org can't
> just get a /48 and apply for more space later. No renumbering required.

Yep



-- 
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