Re: [GLOBAL-V6] up a few thousand meters

[Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>]

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 05:18:34AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote:
> the rirs, as the meeting place of those responsible for prudent operation
> of the network, have traditionally been where the compromise between the
> three *competing* and *conflicting* vectors of
>   o address space conservation,
>   o routing table growth, and
>   o ease of allocation for isps
> have responsibly reached compromise.  

In general, I agree with your sentiments.  Nevertheless, the focus for 
IPv6 has has to be different due to the much larger address size - so 
conservation is less problematic (may I remind you of your argument why
"giving everybody a /48 is not a problem"?), and thus more focus can
be given to routing table and ease of allocation.

[..]
> as we move into the v6 world, prudent folk find it hard not to assume that
> the same or similar forces will be at work.  v6 gives us zero leverage on
> the routing table expansion problem.  there is no reason to believe that
> the seemingly enormous 128 bit address space of v6 will turn out to be any
> more infinite than the seemingly enormous 32 bit address space did some
> decades ago.  

Of course it is not infinite.  In the context of the proposed criteria
(max. 3x 2000 allocations given out, then reconsider), it is definitely
"big enough", though.  Applying your /48 argument: this is 0.001% of the 
address space - so what.

[..]
> in moving forward, it would seem irresponsible to let one consideration
> obviate all others.  e.g. some once thought tlas would solve the routing
> table growth issue by limiting the global universe to 8k isps.  this month,
> others think ease of allocation is most important, and the problems of
> address consumption and routing table growth are old-fashioned fears.

Adress consumption: do the math.

Routing table growth: it might turn out to be a mistake, but even then,
it will be 1/20th of what we have today (6000 vs. 120000).  So the mistake 
is not a deadly one.

To answer the argument of "regional aggregation" brought forward by Steve
Deering: how is that supposed to happen?  There is no regional hierarchy,
no central aggregation point per country or per continent.   I agree,
though, that it would be useful to allocate from bigger RIR blocks, so 
that ISPs that have only a single link to "the other regions" could do
filtering/aggregation on that link on their own.

To answer the argument in favour of "smaller allocations can be filtered
if necessary" - why should a smaller network be "less important" than a
bigger one?  Why is it "better" to filter the IP of www.google.com and
to permit the large network block of @home?  Especially given the fact
that every site gets a /48, the allocation and prefix size has NOTHING
to do with the number of hosts behind it, or the importance of it.  

> as far as i can tell, v6 deployment is not being inhibited by issues
> surrounding address space allocation.

As far as I can tell, v6 deployment in the ARIN region is not taking 
place due to desinterest.  

The APNIC people have very clearly stated at R40 (at least) their need 
for a workable interim policy, and there is still none.  They are 
building production IPv6 networks today.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   71887 (71770)

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