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

[Gary T. Giesen]

Bill,

Does the following text:

"By having a network that has at least 13 sites within one contiguous
network, or;" 

sufficiently address your concerns about routing table slots?

All,

 The reality is ALL IPv6 policy is around routing table slots whether we
admit it or not. If we had TCAMS with trillions of slots the only policy
around IPv6 would be not whether you can get a direct assignment, only the
size of it. The flip side of that is if you don't allow small and midsized
organizations to get direct assignments, we will get ZERO traction on IPv6.
Even at the 13 site threshold, renumbering 13 sites is an ENORMOUS
undertaking, especially if there are extranets involved, where coordination
is difficult and you have little ability to motivate the other party.

Imagine a scenario where a company has 10 VPN tunnels to suppliers,
partners, etc. Imagine it takes 2 months per tunnel to renumber by the time
you've gone through the change control process on both sides, etc. That
could be nearly two years of fairly concerted effort, and none of those are
at all unrealistic numbers. You quickly start to see the problem with
businesses not being able to control their own destiny with respect to
addressing. No company will accept that kind of risk.

So we're left with two options. We can let everyone do ULA + NAT66 (which I
hope we can agree is detrimental to the IPv6 Internet as a whole), or we
give all but the very smallest of organizations the ability to get a direct
assignment should they choose.

GTG


-----Original Message-----
From: William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us] 
Sent: February-17-15 1:06 PM
To: Gary T. Giesen
Cc: David Huberman; John Curran; 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 12:54 PM, Gary T. Giesen <ggiesen at giesen.me> wrote:
> I don't necessarily disagree. Just trying to minimize the business 
> risk of having to have virtually all of my customers qualify under e) 
> with the risk of rejection because my use case isn't specifically spelled
out.

Hi Gary,

When your use case is within an inch or two the one we'd like to prevent, 50
new routes in the table, each serving 10 people on average, business risk
kinda goes with the territory.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us Owner,
Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>