[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
>    William> 7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
>    William> networks participate in registration then they won't have
>    William> conflicting address use.
>
>  I'm not sure I get what non-binding means here.

Hi Michael,

Non-binding in the sense that you're not required to participate in
the registry in order to select and use ULA addresses. Registration is
advantageous and it offers COINs a simple way to resolve conflicts,
but it's not required.


>    William> The $10 supports operating a heavily automated registry.
>    William> The $1 provides mild back-pressure against wasteful
>    William> consumption of /48's.
>
>  However, realize that we basically can never get these addresses back.
> My position might be... if you stop paying the fee, then the
> registration information that was previously private, becomes public.

Nah, just flush the registration info and put them in a hold-pool
where you don't reassign them until explicitly requested by someone or
needed to meet some other policy requirement.


>    William> The contiguity requirement mildly encourages smart
>    William> aggregation practices.
>
>  I do not know why this is important.
>
>  These are networks that can never appear in the DFZ.
>  They may appear in various COINs, VPNs, enterprises, or personal-area
>  networks.
>  64K subnets is enough for many, and anyone with that many routes (a
> COIN or VPN with 256 sites of 256 subnets...) won't be very worried that
> their second /48 does not aggregate with their first /48, I think.

Aggregation is valuable in any modestly complex network and the
back-pressure here is very mild. If you want to register a
disaggregate /48, you just create another $10 account.


On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA space, e.g.
>> FC42::/16.Failing that, simply assert regiistration over a portion of
>> ULA space e.g. FD42::/16.
>>
> Personally, I would rather see us move in the direction of making no
> distinction between numbers for connected and disconnected networks.
> Unless you want to put ARIN in the role of gatekeeper to the routing
> table (which I think is a bad idea), there's no need for such a distinction.

Hi Owen,

I agree in principle, but recognize that no form of needs-based
allocation is likely to be acceptable for private addressing. So long
as we maintain a needs-basis for the public address pools, a uniform
policy is unlikely to be helpful for non-connected users.


> Should there be inter-RIR cooperation on this such that if you participate
> in ARIN registration, you're not going to conflict with APNIC registrants?
> If so, this probably requires a global or globally coordinated proposal.

No significant coordination is needed. ARIN would only manage
registration for a small subset of the ULA space. To the extent that
other RIRs want to do something similar, they need only avoid the
particular /16 that ARIN manages.


> This pricing strategy, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant to
> a policy discussion. If you want to talk about fees ARIN should
> charge, I believe it is better suited to the arin-discuss list.

Respectfully, everything that impacts the eventual implementation of a
policy is relevant to the policy discussion, even those elements which
do not belong in the policy document itself. Also, arin-discuss is a
closed list while this is a public discussion.

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