[arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

Gary T. Giesen ggiesen at giesen.me
Tue Feb 17 11:30:24 EST 2015


I understand the implications to the routing table (and why the policy is in
place). My argument is that if a customer is large enough to justify a /40,
I think they should be able to warrant getting a direct assignment. Note
that my specific use case is for IPVPN (ie private networks) which are then
single-homed to us for Internet traffic. This is probably not all that
unique for an IPVPN customer, since they depend on us for the IPVPN
anyways, multihoming for the Internet access doesn't gain them a lot.  True
that we could force customers to get an ASN and then go multihome to one of
our competitors (or go get an IPv4 /24)  but all of that seems like a lot of
additional hurdles that will hold up adoption of IPv6, particularly for this
use case.

If you force me to go get an IPv4 /24 for them you're only saving half an
IPv6 routing table slot anyways because I'll have to announce the /24,
instead of just assigning them out of my IPv4 aggregate block.


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: February-17-15 11:10 AM
To: Gary T. Giesen
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please
don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at giesen.me> wrote:
> The IPv4 policy has no multihoming requirement, and a vastly lower 
> minimum host count. While the IPv6 policy does try to address some of 
> the economic pain of renumbering, I don't think it goes far enough.

Hi Gary,

This is because we're still trying to minimize the number of routes that are
announced to the global IPv6 table. It's actually rather expensive for the
folks who have to carry those routes and if you can't afford two ISPs then
you're not putting the money into the system that covers that cost.

Also, the nagging little detail that a single-homed entity loses no raw
capability by keeping their prefix out of the core. Some later renumbering
hassle, sure, but no actual capabilities.

> Now I suppose the simple answer is for my customer is to go get an 
> IPv4 /24  (which would automatically qualify them for an IPv6 
> allocation under (a)), but I think that's a waste of time and
resources when:

Yeah, the folks who pushed that one through weren't paying close attention
to the overall policy impact. Their mistake is your gain; my advice is to
game it while you can.

Bill Herrin

William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us Owner,
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list