Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Kevin,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Kevin Loch <kloch@carpathiahost.com>
> Responder a: <kloch@carpathiahost.com>
> Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:03:00 -0400
> Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: "global-v6@lists.apnic.net" <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>
> Asunto: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Global IPv6 PI policy proposal
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Provider-Independent IPv6 assignment size to End-User-Organizations: The
>> minimum size of the assignment is /32. However a larger assignment can be
>> provided if duly documented and justified.
> 
> 4 billion subnets seems to be an excessive ammount of space for a single
> organization.  That is also alot of /48's that could be deaggregated,
> depending on how well things are filtered.

I think it should be clear that this could not be deaggregated, but in
general I will say that it should be the same for any RIR to LIR allocation
...

> 
> At one time I supported a /32 minimum for any type of assignment.  Since
> then I have found the "It is irresponsible to waste space even if it
> seems infinite or the consumption insignificant" argument very
> compelling.

Yes, but we are talking here about temporary space, for several years, but
temporary anyway.

> 
> ARIN settled on a /48 minimum out of separate, easily identifiable
> space.  This allows deaggregated /48's from LIR space to be filtered
> while allowing the PI /48's.
> 
> An alternate approach that I also support is to set the minimum
> at /44 so there are almost no official /48 prefixes.  This
> approach is not perfect as it provides 16 /48's that could be
> deaggregated depending on how people filter.

Following that approach, if we agree on a /48, some folks could decide to
deaggregate it to /56 or whatever, and announce it. I think we need clear
rules to avoid people deaggregating, and I will say nothing smaller than /32
should be announced. I will agree with a "while list" for critical
infrastructures, IXs, and others going for a /48, but I still think using
/32 for those cases is wasting space ... Those special filters cost more in
terms of human resources to maintain them than the cost of a few hundred
critical infrastructures having a /32 instead of /48.

> 
>> Subsequent assignment size to End-User-Organizations: Whenever possible,
>> further assignments will be made from adjacent address blocks, but only if
>> duly documented and justified.
>>  
>> Assignment super-block: Those assignments shall be allocated from a separate
>> super-block to allow for LIRs to filter them if required.
> 
> My recommendation is that a /16 be set aside out of each RIR's
> address reserve for PI assignments to smiplify filtering.

Yes, whatever figure is needed, I will agree on that.

> 
>> Expiry for those assignments: In the case of assignments done under this
>> proposal in order to address the multihoming issue, they will need to return
>> the block in a maximum period of 3 years after a technically correct
>> alternative valid and deployable solution becomes accepted by the community.
>> Alternatively, to avoid renumbering, some of the organizations affected by
>> this, could become an LIR, if they qualify for it.
> 
> Any attempts to reclaim address space by force could be difficult,
> expensive and disruptive.  "Temporary" assignments also discourageuse by
> large organizations. Even with the LIR conversion option it
> sounds like there is too much uncertainty for a large org to make
> a commitment to IPv6.

I don't agree that this is the case here:
1) Is better to be subjected to one renumbering in several years than if
those organizations need to renumber every time they decide to change their
upstream.

2) Is up to the RIR to decide if they actually reclaim the space or decide
to just declare it as unusable. At the end, if this is the case, the
organization that has that block, will return it without any effort from the
RIR.

> 
> - Kevin




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.