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

[james machado]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 3:07 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:47 PM, james machado <hvgeekwtrvl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So we argue for a /48 for each home user site but we toss out that
>> argument when it comes to a smaller business with multiple sites?
>
> Hi James,
>
> I'm not sure how you get that from what I wrote below. Would you mind
> explaining?
>

HI Bill,

Sorry about the top posting, I'll claim laziness and email client
making it too easy to top post.

For example a business with 2 up-streams but only one supports v6 at
this time and the customer doesn't qualify for their own v4
assignment. Business has more than 1 site but less than 10 and is
starting to roll v6 out. Say the sites are 50 devices in total so were
looking at between 50 and 500 devices with smtp but onsite website.
For v4 they have a supplied /24 which is why they still have one
provider who doesn't supply v6 because as soon as they change they
have to renumber.

This business does not qualify for a direct v6 assignment under (a)
through (e) as I currently read them and due to v4 NAT wouldn't
qualify for a direct v4 assignment. They are already have the problem
of renumbering for v4 and if they accept a v6 allocation from their
upstream now have 2 renumbering scenarios to deal with in the future.

OK lets give them a /48 per (f)(wh) and they can put v6 in place but
are they doing it correctly?  Nope they are splitting their /48 across
multiple sites and will again have to re-number when and if they get a
larger assignment. Additionally now that we are advocating /48
assignments to endpoints with multiple sites we might as well start
giving out /60's to end users to "save addresses".

I am not saying that there are not times when a /48 might be the
correct initial assignment what I am saying is that I think the
initial assignment should be based on site count but the barrier for
entry should be lower than it is.  The game is rigged toward the ISPs
and that is not all bad but whats going to drive v6 adoption is not
ISPs, it's going to be business small and large and Johnny who got a
<IGottaHaveIt> for the holidays but can't who are going to drive v6
adoption.

For the "Enterprise" customers there are other issues with v6 that
don't concern ISPs that are their own headache but don't let address
scarcity add to that.

James


>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:28 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> Add to section 6.5.8.1:
>>>
>>> (f) All end user organizations who do not qualify for addresses under
>>> (a) through (e) qualify for a direct assignment of exactly one /48.
>>> This section (f) shall expire upon determination by ARIN staff that
>>> IPv6 has become the "dominant" network protocol on the public
>>> Internet. The expiry shall not impact prior assignments made under
>>> this section.
>
> Also a quick nit -- top posting can make public conversation threads
> like this very hard to follow. I'd encourage you to comment in-line if
> you can.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>