[arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Mon Sep 13 16:18:45 EDT 2021


No, thank you for the effort in writing the proposal, while I think it goes
too far by eliminating 6.5.8.1 altogether, it has been about 10 years since
6.5.8.1.c & d were put in place with ARIN-2010-8 and about 5 years
since 6.5.8.1.e was put in place with ARIN-2015-1. It wouldn't hurt at all
to review those criteria and make sure they meet the community's needs
today. Furthermore, if you think we need to clarify "active use" that is
perfectly appropriate, we could have easily oversimplified the criteria to
the point people new to policy don't really understand what we mean. If
that is the case, that is really good feedback.

My suggestion is to work with the AC Shepherds and focus on
reviewing 6.5.8.1.c-e. If it was me, I would propose cutting the number in
"c" and "d" in half as a starting point for the discussion, the IPv4
initial allocation criteria have changed significantly since ARIN-2010-8. I
think "e" is probably about right but if you have other ideas let's hear
them, and if you have ideas for better wording let's hear that too.  There
is nothing sacred about those numbers or those criteria, but I think there
is strong agreement that there needs to be some kind of criteria that
single-homed end-users need to meat

Thanks.

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 2:05 PM Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us>
wrote:

> Thank you for your time in providing this information. This is the best
> argument against the proposal.
>
>
>
> If this is a significant issue and holds true, then 1) most organizations
> do not and should not qualify for PI space. And 2) These orgs should, per
> the design recommendation in “IPv6 Address Planning”, use NTPv6 with ULA
> internally to avoid ISP lock-in inherent with IPV6 PA space.
>
>
>
> This is far better than IPv4 NAT + RFC1918 in that it is stateless, but is
> an unfortunate workaround that somewhat inhibits the end-to-end principle.
>
>
>
> That would be an unfortunate end-state for IPv6 that most SMB’s are still
> behind NAT, but may be the best technical way forward.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 13, 2021 10:32 AM
> *To:* Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us>
> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment
> Requirements for IPv6
>
>
>
> The intent behind section 6.5.8.1 is not to conserve IPv6 address space
> but to conserve slots in the IPv6 route table, AKA the default-free zone.
> The abundance of /48s and /44s, or /40s, /36s, /32s for that matter, are
> irrelevant, there is only a finite number of routing slots available. BGP
> multihomed end-users will use a routing slot regardless of the source of
> the address space they use, so it is best if it comes from an RIR. However,
> single-homed end-users can be aggregated by their provider, yes this comes
> at a cost of renumbering for those end-users, but eliminating renumbering
> for those end-users comes at a cost of an IPv6 routing slot for the entire
> Internet. Therefore the cost of renumbering born by the end-user has to be
> balanced against the cost of a routing slot born by the entire Internet.
>
>
>
> The IPv6 route table is currently growing quite quickly, see the following;
>
>
> https://blog.apnic.net/2021/03/03/what-will-happen-when-the-routing-table-hits-1024k/
>
> https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-bgp-table/
>
> https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/14/bgp-in-2019-the-bgp-table/
>
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/visibility-of-ipv4-and-ipv6-prefix-lengths-in-2019/
>
> https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html
>
> https://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/2021/37/
>
>
>
> The current 6.5.8.1.c was adapted from the IPv4 requirements when Draft
> Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria was adopted.  At that
> time IPv4 slow-start was still in effect, and there was still an IPv4 free
> pool. When the IPv4 transfer market became the primary source of IPv4
> address space, slow-start was no longer practical or functional, and the
> initial allocation for IPv4 was changed. However, for IPv4 there is now the
> additional cost of obtaining the IPv4 block on the transfer market which
> somewhat offsets the removal to slow-start at least to some extent.
>
>
>
> So, while I do not support the wholesale removal of section 6.5.8.1, I
> would support relaxing, possibly significantly relaxing, or otherwise
> modifying 6.5.8.1.c-e which are the current technical qualification for
> non-multihomed end-users. Fundamentally, it is not practical to have every
> business that could afford to pay ARIN's fees to avoid renumbering and to
> receive an IPv6 routing slot. It is not even entirely clear, there will be
> sufficient IPv6 routing slots for every end-user that is willing to BGP
> multi-home.
>
>
>
> Therefore, I believe there needs some kind of technical criteria that a
> non-multihomed end-user needs to meet to qualify to receive a Provider
> Independent IPv6 Allocation, and it needs to be more than just the ability
> to pay ARIN's fees.
>
>
>
> And for clarity, I do not support the proposal as written.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM Larry R. Dockery <
> lrdocker at co.douglas.or.us> wrote:
>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/
>
>
>
> I would like to hear community feedback on this proposal. Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210913/0c7fa706/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list