<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for your time in providing this information. This is the best argument against the proposal.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 13, 2021 10:32 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Larry R. Dockery <lrdocker@co.douglas.or.us><br>
<b>Cc:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The IPv6 route table is currently growing quite quickly, see the following;<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blog.apnic.net/2021/03/03/what-will-happen-when-the-routing-table-hits-1024k/" target="_blank">https://blog.apnic.net/2021/03/03/what-will-happen-when-the-routing-table-hits-1024k/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-bgp-table/" target="_blank">https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-bgp-table/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/14/bgp-in-2019-the-bgp-table/" target="_blank">https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/14/bgp-in-2019-the-bgp-table/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/visibility-of-ipv4-and-ipv6-prefix-lengths-in-2019/" target="_blank">https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/visibility-of-ipv4-and-ipv6-prefix-lengths-in-2019/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html" target="_blank">https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/2021/37/" target="_blank">https://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/2021/37/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">And for clarity, I do not support the proposal as written.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM Larry R. Dockery <<a href="mailto:lrdocker@co.douglas.or.us" target="_blank">lrdocker@co.douglas.or.us</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I would like to hear community feedback on this proposal. Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">===============================================<br>
David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">
Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota <br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>
=============================================== <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>