Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Dave Wilson <dave.wilson@heanet.ie>]

> In addition, with IPv6, people *will* *not* accept end sites' routes
> in the default free zone.  Some providers that already do IPv6 have
> pretty clearly stated that.

Yes. This, combined with the proposal under discussion, combined with 
the fact that the multihoming groups have not yet reported, means that 
in effect the RIRs are now effectively deciding who may have the ability 
to decide their own routing policy. This was not the case in IPv4.

Any number of /48 assignments, be it 776 or 200 or any number greater 
than 1, is a great mechanism for deciding who will make lots of 
assignments (DSL make lots, NRENs make few) but is not a good mechanism 
for deciding how many actual addresses will be used, and definitely not 
a good policy for deciding who may multihome.

Under this policy, a small or medium-size NREN would not be able to act 
as a bridge between the high speed GEANTs or Abilenes and the general 
internet, something that is crucial to our customers at least and would 
definitely be a force against deployment. Unless that NREN happens to 
connect 200 small schools which can be given a /48 each. This seems to 
me to be very broken.

IMO this policy should concentrate on getting addresses out and leave 
the multihoming problem to those groups set up for it. However I see 
that there is not a consensus for that; so I wonder if we can fix some 
of the particular badness that's caused by the combination of the above.

The consensus seems to be that HD is a good measurement system (I would 
like to see the discussion on this because I don't agree that it's 
measuring what people want it to measure). If we try to keep this then, 
perhaps we could replace

- Organizations requesting address space have a plan for assigning
    address space (e.g., /48s) to other organizations, with the number
    of such assignments likely to result in at least 200 such
    assignments over the next two years.

with something like

- Organisations requesting address space that do not have an existing
    IPv4 infrastructure, have a plan for assigning address space to other
    organisations, with the number of such assignments likely to result
    in at least 200 such assignments over the next two years.

    OR

- Organisations requesting address space that do have an existing IPv4
    infrastructure, have each of
    * their own AS number
    * at least /22 in IPv4 assignments to other organisations
    * a plan for assigning address space to other organisations

The above is ugly; the intention is to find a way to allow new IPv6-only 
providers to enter the market and also give IPv4 providers a migration 
path. We could time-limit this policy to be replaced when the 
multihoming groups report, or at a maximum of 2000 assignments per RIR 
and then stop. That does run the risk of creating a swamp, but the 
damage is limited.

As for strict filtering on the RIR-assigned boundary - I do see this as 
a good thing, but if the RIRs are too strict, there will be pressure on 
network providers to break something, and I think it is strict filtering 
which would break first, leading to much more damage than a limited swamp.

Regards,
Dave

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