[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Fri Feb 5 16:16:42 EST 2010

Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "David" == David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> writes:
>     David> Since I've been working on rewriting ARIN's IPv6 policy I
>     David> want to know how the community want this to actually work, my
>     David> goal is a more direct and clear path for these network to get
>     David> addresses.  However, I see a faction of the ARIN community
>     David> that want these assignments made from a filterable block.
>     David> Then, there is another faction that says, wait a minute, that
>     David> means ARIN is defining Routing Policy.
> If the assignments are not made from a trivially filterable block, then
> the assignments are not special in any way, and if you can convince an
> ISP to carry them, they are exactly the same as connected blocks, and so
> should be charged in the same way.

I believe the cost is not part of the policy.

> The argument against giving out IPv6 /32s to any and all (regardless of
> need) is, I think, that it causes DFZ router table explosion.
> (Remember, there are enough /40s to give every man, woman and child one,
> but I see no reason why any individual human needs more than a /60...)
> We are told that ARIN doesn't do routing policy, yet it seems to me that
> a large amount of ARINs reluctance to make IPv6 addressing available is
> the result of a concern about DFZ router size.
> If we had a way to assign a routing table congestion cost to
> assignments then maybe it would be okay.
> Maybe SIDR will provide a mechanism to do that, since the "routability"
> of a block could expressed in the authorization certificate binding it
> to an ASN.  
> Until such time, ISPs are guardians of a scarce public (distributed)
> resource known as the DFZ.  It's a tragedy of the commons, and a
> fax-effect (at the same time),  were once one ISP starts to pollute the
> table, other ISPs are encouraged by peer pressure to do the same thing.
>     David> Basically it boils down to, if we assign from a common pool
>     David> then there is no distinction and you can only have the
>     David> address space you can justify connected or non-connected.  If
>     David> we make a distinction then, anyone must to be able to get
>     David> such a non-connected assignment without regard to if they
>     David> have an assignment intended intended for global connectivity.
> I can't parse the second sentence, but I think I know what you mean.
> Can you rewrite it for me?

Sorry I wasn't clear, how about these;

- If we make a distinction between Internet connected and non-connected, 
them having an assignment from one or the other can't affect your 
ability to get the other type of space.

- If I have an Internet connected assignment, that should not disqualify 
me from getting a non-connected assignment and visa-versa.

- If I meet the requirements for both, I should be able to get both. I 
would still have to properly meet the requirements independently for 
each assignment, but I should be able to get both.

>     David> So I would like to see continued discussion on the specific
>     David> issue of a common pool for all assignments VS. a specific
>     David> pool for non-connected networks.  Additionally, I intend to
>     David> raise this issue on the floor in Toronto.
> Thanks for bring us back to the topic.
> (It seems amazing that ARIN has only ever once provided aN IPv4 prefix
> that wasn't routable, which is the 24.y/11... )

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list