[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Thu Jun 8 12:25:55 CEST 2006
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!"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]