Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

> Why shouldn't very large, multi-homed end sites be able to get PI
> address space?

Can you define "very large, multi-homed end sites" in such a way that
we can prevent a large number of such assignments, and in particular,
large enough that it causes route table size problems? 

> We're struggling with the addressing structure that should be used
> internally for Cisco IT.  The currently proposed scheme of handing one
> /48 per top-tier root of an end user's provider tree is simply not
> reasonable for the large, multi-homed end users.  Operation of such a
> network will be difficult at best, and very expensive:

I actually agree. I think we need to spend some time thinking about
large organizations that really can justify need either multiple /48s
(2, 10, 100, whatever) or need a single allocation, say a /46, 42,
etc. The document currently says that requests for more than a /48
will be evaluated at the RIR level until there is some experience here
and a more comment policy can be developed. I think this group should
also be thinking about what the right thing to do is here.

However, tactically, I think this document should not try to address
this issue explicitely because this will take too much time. I think
the current wording leaves open the possibility and we should (once
this policy is adopted) look at the multiple /48 problem in more
detail.

I think the points you raise are a good starting point for some of the
issues. (BTW, this came up at last week's ARIN meeting as well, where
there was discussion about whether (say) AOL was an LIR or an end
site).

> 3. I've seen some comments that imply now that we have address
> deprecation, that renumbering is somehow a zero-cost process now, so
> that any amount of renumbering an end-user must do is a non-issue.

For the record, those making such assertions are seriously misinformed
and that is not the message that I and most other folks who have
detailed knowledge of IPv6 like to hear.

> I think that there is a solution gap for large enterprises -- we've
> covered the ISP model, we've looked at the smaller sites, but there
> hasn't been much thought about the very large networks.

I agree, but don't want to hold up the current policy document until
we figure this out.

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