Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Cathy,

I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified
conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated
to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert
gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares
to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of
yet another judgement call.

(I wasn't at the RIPE meeting either, but I did hear Mirjam talk
on this topic yesterday.)

  Brian

CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
> 
> Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not
> been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums,
> proposing something here may be somewhat premature.  I do not believe,
> although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort
> of consensus within the ARIN region.  I am not sure about the APNIC
> region.  Based on some meetings with the European Government
> Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is
> important that we have a global policy.  Is there maybe some way
> that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus
> in all three policy forums?  Something other than requiring no
> justification for a /32?
> 
> Thanks
> ---CJ Wittbrodt
> (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member)
> 
>     From: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
>     Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment
> >>Global Policy
>     Hi,
> 
>     from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR
>     policy meeting.  So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James
>     Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it):
> 
>     On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
>     > >   5.2.1.  Initial allocation criteria
>     [..]
>     > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use
>     > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is
>     [..]
>     > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the
>     > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a
>     > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a
>     > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too
>     > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and
>     > then the RIRs get into a different problem.
> 
>     Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria".
> 
>     To be precise, I proposed the following:
> 
>      - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their
>        fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address
>        can get a /32.  No further justification required.
> 
>      - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only
>        assigment of 2000 /32s per region.  So the maximum wastage is 6000
>        /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking
>        about), and 6000 additional routes.
>        After that, we're going to reconsider policy.
> 
>     There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC),
>     but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region.
> 
>     Reasoning (shortened):
> 
>      - why are we putting criteria there?  To keep out "some that we do not
>        want".  Conservation is not an issue.  Routing table growth might
>        be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know.
> 
>      - do we want major national research networks connecting something like
>        "50 universities"?  YES
> 
>      - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up
>        a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"?  NO, if you
>        assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that
>        means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s"
> 
>        On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers
>        over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which
>        is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very
>        easy.
> 
>        Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32?  Does
>        it mean they will make "better use" of it?
> 
>     So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria
>     based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule).  If we
>     can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of
>     damage that can be done.
> 
>     [..]
>     > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)?
> 
>     Think of the research networks.  One /48 per university would be
>     "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48".
> 
>     Gert Doering
>             -- NetMaster
>     --
>     Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   71770 (72395)
> 
>     SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
>     Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
>     80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
>

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net