[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last Call

[George, Wes E [NTK]]

-----Original Message-----
From: David Williamson [mailto:dlw+arin at tellme.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 1:06 PM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: Jim Weyand; Owen DeLong; Member Services; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last Call

<snip>
  There are, however, non-transit service providers(like my employer) that have legitimate need for our own address space.  We simply cannot use reassigned PA space.
[weg] I would expect that you would qualify under 6.5.8 (previously discussed issues with 6.5.8.1.b notwithstanding). This policy is specific to 6.5.1, which is for LIRs. It's possible that multihoming needs to be referenced both places, I don't know.

And I disagree with your assertion that renumbering is easy.  It can be, but many
enterprises have substantial VPN infrastructures, and changing the
configs of your portners devices to accomodate a renumbering is a
manpower expense that trivially justifies the ongoing cost of your own
space.  Furthermore, we simply do not qualify as an LIR, and we don't
have any transit customers, which makes the 200 number seem very large
indeed.
[weg] Again, ARIN has a separate section for non-LIR allocations. I'm not saying renumbering is easy. I'm saying that I've done it on a network larger than this 200 end-site requirement, and it's workable, and in my mind it's not a good enough justification on its own for waiving the requirement in order for small networks to get PI space. If it is, then no one should ever get PD space, hence my comments later in my message. It's always going to be a line in the sand, but I'd bet that even if we set it at 100, someone's going to complain because they have to renumber their 99-site network, and that's too hard. ;-)

> Section 6 of the NRPM has no references at all to multihoming. Perhaps that's a problem, given its prevalence in the sections on IPv4.

On this, I entirely concur.  If you are going to be singlehomed, please
don't use a routing slot, and please just use PA.

> I would be in support of something that adds a reference to being multihomed in the criteria as justification for PI space, rather than a reduction in the number of end sites. IPv6 address space is mindbogglingly big, so I know that talk about trying to be prudent in our use of it will largely be shouted down, but I'll say it anyway. This maybe goes a bit too far.

Makes sense to me.  But the original discussion is really about LIRs,
which won't be getting PI space anyway.
[weg] I'm not following you. Did you mean PD?

<snip>

-David


This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.