Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: a consensus, about what?

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:02:57AM -0800, David Kessens wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:56:04AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> > 
> > The basic policy issue seems to me:
> > 
> >   - who can get a (globally routeable [1]) IPv6 prefix
> > 
> > it might affect the policy "who can get an AS number".
> 
> It seems a really bad idea to connect this to AS number assignments.

This wasn't my intention, just an observation.  If it's easy to get
a "prefix that can be used for BGP multihoming", then the customer
will also quite likely need an AS number.

This is why the "prefix policy" will inevitably have some effect on the
way AS numbers are allocated - maybe not on the AS# policy itself, but at
least on the going rate.

> Currently, the policy for getting AS # assignments is quite clear (one
> has to multihome to get an AS #!)

Yes, and this is a Good Thing.

> I don't believe it is smart to change IP number allocation policies in
> such a way that people are going to multihome (or lie that they are
> multihoming) so that they can get an AS # (that they don't need) and a
> PI address allocation. These things are two separate things and should
> stay separate.

They are not the same thing, but not fully separable either...

[..]
> independance of one's provider. In fact the so called PA blocks are
> exactly the same: how many ISPs who have a PA block want to be
> dependant on their transit providers IPs ? Basically, all blocks that
> a RIR gives out are PI. It is only the customers of the LIRs who get
> PA address space.
> 
> I believe that it is much better to drop this whole discussion on PI.
> The discussion should focus on who can get an IP address space
> allocation from the RIR and how large.

Sure, in the end, there the IPv6 address looks the same, whether you
tag it PI or PA.  They differ only when it comes to giving part of 
your address space to third parties (and still want to keep the
aggregate together) -> PA.

[..]
> As an example, I don't believe we can justify that a very large entity
> has (perceived) difficulties in obtaining ipv6 addresses while a tiny
> ISP that has plans for 200 customers but doesn't quite have that many
> customers yet and in total has less users than the large entity will
> get a /32 without any problem.
> 
> Basically, we don't need additional policies, we need a modification
> of the current policy to make sure that users of address space of
> similar size will get and can get similar sized blocks of address space.

Partly I agree, and to some extent I disagree - the *size* of the block
isn't what people seem to be worrying about.  The sheer fact that someone
can get (or not) an "independent BGP routing table slot" - which is always
"one", no matter how big the network is - seems to be.

Starting to hand out different sizes might lead people to connecting
"importance" to "network size", which would be a wrong signal.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  81421

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234