[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 9, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Charles O'Hern wrote:

> While I do support Proposal 121, I do have a concern/questions about Owen's first point.
> 
> On 12/8/10 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I've been asked by a fellow AC member to spend some more effort documenting
>> reasons we should enact proposal 121.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> I think it is important to be careful here about two things.
> 1) While removing any obstacles or discouragement from subordinate ISPs receiving PA space is a good thing, we should take care that we don't end up discouraging the same ISPs from
> obtaining PI space instead.  I do not believe the current wording does this, but I think it is important to keep the point in mind for future edits.
> 
I completely agree.

> 2) After the SWIP topics of this last year on the PPML list, I have this impression that record keeping across the ARIN region is a bit inconsistent and lacks automation.  I hate
> to bring up what seems to be a dead-horse topic, but should SWIP policy be modified in regards to any difference between subordinate ISPs and large end users?  Should there be a
> policy about SWIP auditing?  Does a multi-homed subordinate ISP, which qualifies for a /32 of PI from ARIN, qualify to get a /32 PA from each of its providers?  Given the size of
> v6 are we even concerned if they do so?  And what would that do to global routing table growth?
> 
There are several questions there. I'll attempt to answer them in order.

1.	Perhaps, but, I think that is out of scope for this particular proposal. I do not believe
	this proposal makes the situation any worse than current. I would be happy
	to work with anyone who wants to write policy to address that issue.

2.	Same answer as the first question.

3.	I don't see any meaningful way to prevent this, but, I also do not see any advantage
	to the subordinate ISP from doing so. Their end-sites can each only count as
	utilization in one of the blocks.

4.	I suspect not especially.

5.	Nothing more than the single PI block from ARIN since the PA blocks would still
	be aggregates.

> and a personal ignorance question:  Does a subordinate ISP with X aggregate allocations advertised through Y direct upstream ISPs end up adding X x Y routes to the global tables?
> 
No.. They end up adding X routes and X*Y Paths to the global tables.
However, paths are not the issue, prefixes are.

Also, the belief that they add X routes is based on the assumption that
none of those X routes are handled by an upstream providers aggregate
advertisement.

Owen