On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, David Conrad wrote:
Can you identify an organization that does not want to avoid renumbering or which might not identify a need to be multihomed?
Yes!!! ...there are a lot of clueless people around ;-)
I have a couple of LANs at my house. A /48 for each LAN sounds reasonable to me. Does that justify an IPv6 /32?
It really shouldn't. Most of people outside the so called "v6-community" find very odd that 1 customer gets addressing for 65536 LANs... ;-)
More seriously, impositions of subjective evaluations like figuring out what is "reasonable" are generally things to be avoided. Also, vagueness of terms such as "own/related departments/entities/sites" are just begging for abuse. A person is an entity. Should an organization with a "reasonable" number of people justify a /32?
That's going again on the subjective side... :-( We had enough with the 200-hurdle already, right?
The lack of transparent renumbering, scalable multi-homing, or IPv6-only applications is a much more significant barrier to deployment. You are attempting to fix a technology problem by hacking policy in a way that would exacerbate the technology problem. This seems suboptimal to me. But that's probably just me.
No. You can add me to that list too... :-)
If you have documentary proof of potential illegality, it would probably be worthwhile to provide it. If not, this sentence is merely FUD and should be stricken. Even if you do have evidence that some country's law is being broken, it isn't clear to me how that should affect RIPE policy. For example, I believe a country in the RIPE region has passed a law (or is in the process of passing a law)
Can i ask *which* one ? :-)
that requires IP address space to be allocated by that country's government. Should RIPE therefore only allocate address space to governments?
I don't think organisations where govts don't want to control ip allocations will like the extra bureaucracy level. ;-)
b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
One possible effect of this proposal would be a growth of global routing tables. This is only to be expected when new allocations are made possible under this proposal.
Too simplistic. This proposal, like all PI oriented allocation policies, changes routing scalability from O(number of service providers) to O(number of organizations). Pretending this is "only to be expected" is simply wrong. You can argue that technology will permit O(number of organizations) in the default free routing system, but that is a different argument than "it is to be expected".
Strongly agree.
A fixed number of assignments was an attempt to quantify a "reasonable" level of aggregation. Given the routing technology used in IPv6 depends on aggregatability to scale, there is an implicit assumption that those who cannot provide aggregation of leaves should themselves become a leaf under some other aggregator.
Yes, but... certain business models are not compatible with this... :-( (...)
Rgds, -drc
Just my 2 (euro-)cents. Regards, ./Carlos -------------- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (184902/571), naming (millions) and... people!"