[arin-ppml] Using fees to encourage route aggregation

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:26 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I do believe it is important to deal with IPv6 route aggregation and soon,
> because I also agree with Scott that "there isn't a lot of need for doing so
> just yet".  But that is because the IPv6 toothpaste is still mostly in the
> tube.  So while maybe we don't need it just yet, we can't wait until we
> actually need it, it may be to late to implement anything then.
>
> General Purpose Provider Allocations /32 or shorter;
> 2001:0400::/23
> 2001:1800::/23
> 2001:4800::/23
> 2600:0000::/12
> 2610:0000::/23
>
> General Purpose End-User Assignments (PI), /48 or shorter;
> 2620:0000:/23

Hi David,

One ARIN policy problem that's turning this into an IPv6 swamp is the
"or shorter" part. Every time ARIN hands out a /40 they've effectively
handed out 256 disaggregable /48's. As a community we'd be far better
off if everyone who could justify more than a /48 got a /32 from the
/32 blocks instead.

This isn't IPv4. We don't actually need to save the bits between /40
and /32 but it would be awfully handy if I could write a simple route
filter that says, "your entire ARIN allocation (not subdivided parts
of it) is what I'm willing to accept and route." I could even resort
to, "whichever neighbor offers the largest chunk of a given ARIN
allocation gets the packets for the whole thing so don't try to mess
with me by failing to offer the aggregate route."

Functionally, this means reintroducing what amounts to classful
addressing at the interdomain level. The difference this time is that
there actually are enough class B's for everyone who needs more than a
class C. There are even enough class A's.

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