[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 1.      Current IPv6 policy is being interpreted to the detriment of ISPs that
>        have subordinate ISPs. Subordinate ISPs should be able to get PA
>        space from their upstreams equivalent to what they would be able
>        to get directly from ARIN. Currently, ARIN is not allowing for the
>        possibility that an ISP would reallocate /32s (or larger) to their
>        subordinate ISPs.

Hi Owen,

Can you suggest a scenario in which a a subordinate /32 allocation is
unambiguously appropriate on the technical merits versus the same ARIN
allocation directly to the subordinate ISP? It seems to me like you
might have to make some unwarranted assumptions to get there.


> 2.      HD Ratio is confusing to people and of dubious value vs. basing
>        utilization on simple ratios.

Agree 100%. In addition to being cryptic, ARIN's HD ratio is a
misapplication of the relevant research. The math has been modified in
a way inconsistent with what little empirical data supports the
original observations. It should go away.


> 3.      A large number of historic outages have been the direct result
>        of people being generally bad at bitmath. By moving allocations
>        to nibble boundaries, we can reduce the likelihood of these
>        errors by removing complex bitmath from most network deployments.

Agree 100%. There are many good reasons for limiting the bit
boundaries on which allocations are made and the nibble is a natural
boundary for IPv6.


> 4.      The current complexity of getting allocations larger than /32 from
>        ARIN is resulting in many providers choosing, instead, to shrink
>        the size of assignments they give to end sites to less than /48.
>        If this practice becomes wide spread, it will likely reduce possible
>        innovations in the SOHO realm because vendors will generally
>        implement to the lowest common denominator.

I don't personally find a reduction from /48 a compelling argument. If
anything, a more reasonable recommendation than /48 would tend to help
folks avoid foolish mistakes like /64... which actually could create
the lowest-common-denominator effect you fear.

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