[arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

[George, Wes E IV [NTK]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:36 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Preemptive IPv6 assignment

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:37 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK]
> <Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
> > PD space (assuming your upstream does IPv6) obviates this
> > argument 99% of the time because there are no ARIN fees to
> > pay. If renumbering is more expensive than the ARIN fee for
> > PI space, that makes your business case for you, otherwise
> > you should be using PD.
>
> If your percentage is on target then the folks we're talking about
> here -- those who already announce routes into the BGP table -- are
> squarely within the 1% for whom ISP space does not fit. We know this
> because gee, they have an ARIN AS number and are announcing routes
> into the BGP table. Anybody can claim need but demonstration doesn't
> get much clearer than actual BGP routing on the public Internet.

[WES] and from a previous mail:
>I claim that anyone actually announcing routes with a registry AS
>number has demonstrated a defacto need for registry IPv6 addresses.

[WES] No, having a registry AS# and announcing routes != having an allocation from $registry. It simply means that they are multihomed. There are plenty of networks who get PD IPv4 from one or more upstreams and announce it to all of them via BGP.
I acknowledge that multihoming with PD space in IPv6 is not necessarily attractive due to risks of your subnet announcements being filtered on some networks, but it's not impossible, nor is that germane to the discussion.

Either way, the point being made referred to cost (ARIN fees) as a barrier, not ability to get space (demonstrated need), and PD is a viable solution for at least some of the folks experiencing that financial problem. Simply handing everyone space won't change that, because if they start using it, they're still responsible for the fees.

I simply don't see the point at which this helps spur deployment. The turnaround time on processing new IPv6 address requests is not so high that pre-allocating will fundamentally save us anything, because it doesn't move the needle in terms of when it actually gets *deployed* and *used* inside of any network that currently isn't doing either. If the problem is that those who need it can't get it, propose policy to fix that. If the problem is that those who need it and want to deploy can't afford it, propose policy to fix that. This isn't a solution to either problem.

Wes George

________________________________

This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.