Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Global Policy

6 Feb 2002

      Brian,

I realize that there is what we consider to be a huge amount of
v6 address space.  What you have to understand though is that
you have a bunch of folks who are living day to day with the
last time the powers that be decided that we had more address
space than we could possible use.  They gave out A's and B's
and they too thought that there was more than we could possibly
ever use.  Now the registries (ARIN in particular) spends a lot
of time trying to figure out how to reclaim that space.  There
are a lot of folks who feel that we're repeating old mistakes.

Note also that if there are no justifications required to get
a /32 except becoming what RIPE calls an LIR (this term varies
from region to region), this means that it won't be long before
folks there are many many small multihomed sites that have these 
blocks.  Mirjam said herself in the meeting that the reason that
RIPE has justification stuff required for V4 blocks now is because
folks had figured this out and started getting LIR space just
because they're multihimed.  It isn't like we're starting from
scratch here, folks are pretty sophistocated these days.  Further
since the actual methods of handing out the space vary from 
region to region it means that there may be more hurdles than
just becoming an LIR.  For example, in the RIPE region, when
you get a block you can announce the whole block, but you have
to ask permission to actually use each subnet (no matter how 
small).  Of course their v6 policy may be different, who knows.
This is not the same way that it works in all regions.
Unless you get space from all three (soon to be 4) it is 
difficult to really understand the subtle differences. 

It wasn't my intent to argue this here, it was just my intent
to point out that I doubted that this policy would reach 
consensus in all regions because of the past history. 
I misinterpreted the original note as a submission of changes
for the document.  I thought it was premature to make changes
at this point.  I am glad that wasn't the intent of the note.

We'll see what happens.  As Anne said (thanks Anne!) the APNIC
meeting is coming up.  The ARIN policy meeting is in April.

Thanks!
---CJ

    From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
    Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and 
	     Assignment Global Policy
    Cathy,

    I'm still quite surprised by the way in which the fully justified
    conservatism of the registries for IPv4 space is being over-extrapolated
    to IPv6 space. If you look objectively at the argument that Gert
    gives, and consider how the size of the IPv6 prefix space compares
    to the total IPv4 space, /32 just isn't risky, and it gets rid of
    yet another judgement call.

    (I wasn't at the RIPE meeting either, but I did hear Mirjam talk
    on this topic yesterday.)

      Brian

    CJ Wittbrodt wrote:
    > 
    > Since the events of the recent RIPE working group meeting have not
    > been discussed at either of the other regional policy forums,
    > proposing something here may be somewhat premature.  I do not believe,
    > although things never cease to amaze me, that this will reach any sort
    > of consensus within the ARIN region.  I am not sure about the APNIC
    > region.  Based on some meetings with the European Government
    > Advisory Council (just after the RIPE meeting) it is clear that it is
    > important that we have a global policy.  Is there maybe some way
    > that we could come up with a compromise that would reach consensus
    > in all three policy forums?  Something other than requiring no
    > justification for a /32?
    > 
    > Thanks
    > ---CJ Wittbrodt
    > (ARIN Advisory Council and ASO Address Council member)
    > 
    >     From: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>
    >     Subject: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] New draft available: IPv6 Address Allocation and Assig
...
...
nment
    > >>Global Policy
    >     Hi,
    > 
    >     from your comments, I gather you have not been to the RIPE IPv6/LIR
    >     policy meeting.  So let's add a few comments (while waiting for James
    >     Aldridge to publish the "official" word on it):
    > 
    >     On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:38PM -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
    >     > >   5.2.1.  Initial allocation criteria
    >     [..]
    >     > The goal was to give a site a /32 if it can justify it will use
    >     > it. The word "immediately" (as in demonstrate an immediate need) is
    >     [..]
    >     > So the real issue here (and this comes up again in later parts of the
    >     > document) is what is a reasonable way to objectively evaluate a
    >     > request for address space that requires some guessing as to whether a
    >     > proposed plan will actually be carried out. If the time frame is too
    >     > long, it becomes easy to make optimistic plans that won't pan out, and
    >     > then the RIRs get into a different problem.
    > 
    >     Consensus on the IPv6/LIR policy meeting was "drop the criteria".
    > 
    >     To be precise, I proposed the following:
    > 
    >      - any LIR that is established (has done all the paperwork, paid their
    >        fees, and whatnot) and can document the need for one IPv6 address
    >        can get a /32.  No further justification required.
    > 
    >      - to avoid a horrible mistake, every region is permitted to allow only
    >        assigment of 2000 /32s per region.  So the maximum wastage is 6000
    >        /32s (out of 500 million /32s in the 1/8th of the space we're talking
    >        about), and 6000 additional routes.
    >        After that, we're going to reconsider policy.
    > 
    >     There was concern from the other regional registries (ARIN and APNIC),
    >     but broad consensus from the people from the RIPE region.
    > 
    >     Reasoning (shortened):
    > 
    >      - why are we putting criteria there?  To keep out "some that we do not
    >        want".  Conservation is not an issue.  Routing table growth might
    >        be influenced by this, or might be not, we don't know.
    > 
    >      - do we want major national research networks connecting something like
    >        "50 universities"?  YES
    > 
    >      - will this research network meet any criteria based on "you must use up
    >        a big number of /48s, otherwise you can't get a /32"?  NO, if you
    >        assign a /48 per university (which would be plenty!), because that
    >        means "you can only demonstrate a need for 50 /48s"
    > 
    >        On the other hand, if you say "I connect lots of private customers
    >        over DSL lines, using fixed IP addresses, giving each user a /48 (which
    >        is OK according to IETF guidelines)", reaching over 50 /48s is very
    >        easy.
    > 
    >        Does this mean the second example is "more worthy" to get a /32?  Does
    >        it mean they will make "better use" of it?
    > 
    >     So all technical criteria based on /48 usage must fail, and criteria
    >     based on single IP usage will fail as well (due to the /48 rule).  If we
    >     can't propose criteria that work, drop them - BUT limit the amount of
    >     damage that can be done.
    > 
    >     [..]
    >     > Or is it the 776 end site figure (i.e., too high)?
    > 
    >     Think of the research networks.  One /48 per university would be
    >     "according to the /48 rule: each SITE gets a /48".
    > 
    >     Gert Doering
    >             -- NetMaster
    >     --
    >     Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   71770 (72395)
    > 
    >     SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
    >     Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
    >     80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
    >