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

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Fri May 29 16:15:02 EDT 2009


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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 825 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090529/db05bb0e/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list