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

[Steven Ryerse]

I agree.  I would also add that I got my IPv6 block from ARIN three years ago and have been dutifully paying the bill for it each year, even though I don't have a customer asking for IPv6 yet.  I'm betting that there are a lot of orgs in this situation.  Putting needs tests on IPv6 blocks is only slowing down the IPv6 transition and hurting my investment in IPv6.  

I vote for Gary's 2nd option  "we give all but the very smallest of organizations the ability to get a direct assignment should they choose".  

Steven L Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099 - Office
770.392-0076 - Fax

℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
                     Conquering Complex Networks℠

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:11 AM
To: 'William Herrin'; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66)

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/>

_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.