[arin-ppml] FW: [sig-policy] prop-083: Alternative criteria for subsequentIPv6 allocations

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> The crux is that even if aggregation of announcements as a 
> policy is dropped, there is no policy that satisfies the need 
> of LIR's to be able to build non-connected IPv6 networks in 
> the APNIC region.
> 
> With some basic justification, an LIR should be able to gain 
> subsequent /32 allocations for the purpose of remaining 'as 
> routable as possible'.

I think you should consider some editing of your policy proposal
because I can't understand it. But, above, you seem to be
suggesting that a network operator who is operating multiple
disconnected IPv6 networks should be able to get multiple discrete
/32 allocations. 

This seems reasonable to me. However before making a final 
determination I would like to see some input from the operators
of large Internet data centres. It seems to me that a data centre
is rather like a multi-tenant building, and since a tenant in 
a multi-tenant building deserves a /48 assignment, it seems
reasonable that a data centre operator should give everyone
a /48. That means if you rent a cage, you get a /48, if you rent
a rack you get a /48, and if you colocate a 1U server with a single
ethernet connection, you get a /48. Let's face it, lots of these
servers will have multiple cores and could be running dozens or
hundreds of virtual machines with a complex internal network created
by softrouters and softswitches. See <http://openvswitch.org/> and
<http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2009/workshops/wren/slides/tripa
thi-crossbow-wren09.pdf>
for examples of the kind of things that people are doing.

Out of that analysis we might learn that a block size less than /32
would be more appropriate for these disconnected data centres.
Perhaps a /36 per centre would work, and they could be allocated 
out of a block designated for /36 blocks.

--Michael Dillon