<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1614707671;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1251475822 269025297 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1882090187;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1578875238 269025303 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307 269025295 269025305 269025307;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="color:#1F497D">But “something quite so fuzzy” is your interpretation, not ARIN’s. So let’s get ARIN’s interpretation and try and take the fuzziness out of the equation.<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Question for ARIN: In the general (normal) case when an application is made for EU v6 under clause e) and there’s a technical explanation for why they want RIR-issued space, will the application be approved
?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gary T. Giesen [mailto:ggiesen@giesen.me] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> David Huberman; arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:#1F497D">That’s obviously a consideration but I don’t want to build an IPv6 adoption model for my customers around something quite so fuzzy where one customer could be approved and another be denied. I prefer
something a little more concrete that I can point a customer to an say “apply under this” and it’s plain to them (and ARIN) that they qualify.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:#1F497D"><br>
GTG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Huberman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> February-17-15 11:38 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gary T. Giesen; <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">Apply under e). You'll get approved, I think.<br>
<br>
David R Huberman<br>
Microsoft Corporation<br>
Principal, Global IP Addressing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</span></div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-CA" style="color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>> on behalf of Gary T. Giesen <<a href="mailto:ggiesen@giesen.me">ggiesen@giesen.me</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:36:59 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)</span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-CA"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">PPML,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">I’d like to discuss what I perceive as a gap in the IPv6 End User policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Under the NRPM Section 4.3, there are virtually no requirements for an initial IPv4 assignment to end users, other than the minimum allocation size is a /24 and a 50% (128 addresses) within one year. Under the analogous
IPv6 section (6.5.8), an End User can only quality for a direct assignment from ARIN if they meet one of the following criteria:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or;<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">e. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Real life scenario:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">1)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">Customer with 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">2)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">10 staff per location (average; 500 total)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">3)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">20 devices per location (average; 1000 total)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">4)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">5)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">Not multihomed<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">6)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">You may think my example is contrived, but is actually my typical customer. Based on my reading of the NRPM, this customer does not qualify for a direct allocation from ARIN. I’d argue, however that the economic costs
to this customer renumbering are far greater than another customer who has 2000 staff or 200 subnets located within a few locations in the same metro area.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">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 6.5.8.1 (a)), but I think that’s a waste of time and resources when:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">a)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">We’ve accepted NAT in the IPv4 world is a fact of life, but in IPv6 it’s the exception rather than the norm<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">b)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">IPv4 is the constrained resource, yet it seems to be more readily available to end users<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4"><![if !supportLists]><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">c)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><![endif]><span lang="EN-CA">We’re hinging IPv6 deployments on IPv4 deployments, which seems counter-intuitive to me (we should be making IPv6 more accessible than IPv4 to encourage adoption, rather than the other way around)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span lang="EN-CA">I’m actively engaged in convincing my customers to adopt IPv6 (rather than waiting for them to ask for it), but it’s a tough sell already without the problem of them having to renumber their
entire network should they no longer be my customer. The only alternative left to me is ULA addressing (which still doesn’t guarantee uniqueness) + NAT66 (which is still very poorly supported in applications – meaning a poor user experience). I believe it
is commonly held amongst this community that IPv6 is supposed to restore the end-to-end principle of the Internet (that is my belief as well), but IPv6 won’t get deployed in this fashion if it’s going to be too painful to deploy or move.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">So here’s my proposed solution: Make direct assignments available to any end user who qualifies for at least a /40 (13+ sites). I think this addresses most problems with routing table growth (by not handing out a direct
/48 to every mom and pop shop out there), addresses most of my customers’ concerns with having to renumber dozens of sites, and doesn’t force customers to get IPv4 /24’s just to get the IPv6 resources they need.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Thoughts/criticisms/questions/concerns?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">GTG<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>