[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition

[John Curran]

On May 16, 2012, at 8:34 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> The foundation for a claim that preemptive assignment meaningfully
> harms aggregation is most weak.

Routing aggregation from preemptive provider-independent assignments 
will definitely be much, much less than provider-assigned IPv6 prefixes, 
and while there is some chance of aggregation of successive assignments, 
it is likely that there are very few such end-user successive assignments 
to actually make a meaningful difference.

If indeed the community feels that provider-based IPv6 aggregation is
unnecessary (I truly do no know either way and believe that those who
operate large numbers of DFZ routers need to weigh in here), then there
are actually easier approaches to the problem which provide for fully
automatic IPv6 end-user block assignment.

For example, a single /16 global reservation done for the purposes of
providing algorithmic assignment via concatenation of AS number would
mean any party with an AS # would also have an associated /48 IPv6 block.

There is nominal administrative aggregation at the RIR level for things
like reverse DNS in such a model, but realistically no aggregation 
in the IPv6 routing announcements would result from this approach.
Other aggregation-free approaches to consider include IPv4 address 
concatenation to a global prefix, prefix + MEID, etc.  The IETF has 
historically not supported such approaches (citing the very poor routing 
aggregation properties of provider-independent end-user assignments and 
concerns from the ops community from widespread use) but if circumstances 
have changed, then revisiting these approaches could provide some very
straightforward models for widespread IPv6 number resource availability.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN