[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition

Astrodog astrodog at gmx.com
Thu May 17 23:58:47 EDT 2012

>    Widespread use of provider-independent IPv6 assignments has been deemed 
>    unacceptable in the past by many in the community due to the potential 
>    routing impact, and noting that if indeed this assumption has changed 
>    (and every multi-homed organization can have their own IPv6 routing entry), 
>    then revisiting algorithmic approaches could quickly facilitate making
>    IPv6 address blocks availability to all organizations holding AS numbers,
>    IPv4 address blocks, cell phones, etc.

This is an interesting concern to me as the majority of the
organizations I work with are end-user assignees that route little to no
traffic that is not destined specifically for them, or something they're
originating. (Though, in some cases, they have peered with providers who
wanted to run transit on their internal back-haul)

The number of organizations electing to multi-home their connections is
likely to only increase as they become more and more dependent on
internet connectivity to conduct their business. In my industry, this
particular trend is accelerating very rapidly, as running things like
drilling operations remotely, while depending on a single provider is
considered an incredibly risky proposition, regardless of what an SLA

Making it more difficult for organizations to obtain a provider
independent allocation does ease the burden on routing equipment, but
only at the cost of interfering with how end-users use their
connectivity, forcing them into things trying to manage traffic with
tools ill-suited to the task, such as low TTL DNS records, carrier NAT,
or in one notable case, a strange trade of VPN connections with various
other entities to allow all of them access to addresses in the others'
space. It also serves to force them in to maintaining a relationship
with a single provider, due to re-numbering pain.

I do not see these organizations sacrificing the huge advantages of
provider-independent addressing, simply to allow external organizations
to avoid purchasing additional or upgraded equipment.

As it stands now, these organizations qualify under ARIN's requirements.
Is it the intent of the community to tighten the rules? The routing
problems created by provider-independent addressing are unavoidable, as
more and more organizations determine that it is not in their interests
to tie their addressing to a single provider. I do not believe it is in
the interests of the community to attempt to frustrate these efforts, as
most of the alternatives are worse, and the organizations involved are
unlikely to comply willingly. One provider may refuse to route them and
broadcast the routes, but for a large enough check *someone* will.

--- Harrison

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list