Bill,
One of the tests for a direct assignment is if renumbering would affect 2000+ users. My argument is that having to renumber a /40 worth of address space because they switch providers is at *least* as painful has having to renumber 2000 users. GTG From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: February-17-15 11:32 AM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: Gary T. Giesen; [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66) The point isn't the size of the block, it's the cost of the route. -Bill On Feb 17, 2015, at 08:23, Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> wrote: Your point is valid and I agree that IPv6 doesn’t need those needs tests except maybe for large blocks. The routing table is always an issue, but if we want IPv6 to become the standard we should follow Jon Postel’s model of making it easy to get IPv6 resources. Since there is a yearly fee to get IPv6, organizations will only purchase what they need since they can get more and that is all of the needs testing needed for smaller blocks of IPv6. My two cents. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't me make do ULA + NAT66) PPML, I’d like to discuss what I perceive as a gap in the IPv6 End User policy. Under the NRPM Section 4.3, there are virtually no requirements for an initial IPv4 assignment to end users, other than the minimum allocation size is a /24 and a 50% (128 addresses) within one year. Under the analogous IPv6 section (6.5.8), an End User can only quality for a direct assignment from ARIN if they meet one of the following criteria: a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries, or; b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or; c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6 addresses within 12 months, or; d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64 subnets within 12 months, or; e. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable. The IPv4 policy has no multihoming requirement, and a vastly lower minimum host count. While the IPv6 policy does try to address some of the economic pain of renumbering, I don’t think it goes far enough. Real life scenario: 1) Customer with 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent 2) 10 staff per location (average; 500 total) 3) 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total) 4) 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total) 5) Not multihomed 6) Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT You may think my example is contrived, but is actually my typical customer. Based on my reading of the NRPM, this customer does not qualify for a direct allocation from ARIN. I’d argue, however that the economic costs to this customer renumbering are far greater than another customer who has 2000 staff or 200 subnets located within a few locations in the same metro area. Now I suppose the simple answer is for my customer is to go get an IPv4 /24 (which would automatically qualify them for an IPv6 allocation under 6.5.8.1 (a)), but I think that’s a waste of time and resources when: a) We’ve accepted NAT in the IPv4 world is a fact of life, but in IPv6 it’s the exception rather than the norm b) IPv4 is the constrained resource, yet it seems to be more readily available to end users c) We’re hinging IPv6 deployments on IPv4 deployments, which seems counter-intuitive to me (we should be making IPv6 more accessible than IPv4 to encourage adoption, rather than the other way around) I’m actively engaged in convincing my customers to adopt IPv6 (rather than waiting for them to ask for it), but it’s a tough sell already without the problem of them having to renumber their entire network should they no longer be my customer. The only alternative left to me is ULA addressing (which still doesn’t guarantee uniqueness) + NAT66 (which is still very poorly supported in applications – meaning a poor user experience). I believe it is commonly held amongst this community that IPv6 is supposed to restore the end-to-end principle of the Internet (that is my belief as well), but IPv6 won’t get deployed in this fashion if it’s going to be too painful to deploy or move. So here’s my proposed solution: Make direct assignments available to any end user who qualifies for at least a /40 (13+ sites). I think this addresses most problems with routing table growth (by not handing out a direct /48 to every mom and pop shop out there), addresses most of my customers’ concerns with having to renumber dozens of sites, and doesn’t force customers to get IPv4 /24’s just to get the IPv6 resources they need. Thoughts/criticisms/questions/concerns? GTG _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
