[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@localhost]

Terry,

SLAs can be set up to route multihoming and should work for high-order
prefixes.  See below URL RFC 3178. 

ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3178.txt

Also all see attached allocations data from Mike Brig long time IPv6
Forum and NAv6TF SME, actually working with ARIN now on address space
for his day job.  Mike this is very good.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Davis, Terry L [
	    
	    
] 
> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:40 PM
> To: Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6"); Bound, 
> Jim; Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@localhost
> Cc: Richard Jimmerson; ollivier.robert@localhost 
> narten@localhost Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, 
> Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI
> Subject: RE: Question
> 
> Latif
> 
> The ITU is one of my top concerns also.  I am hearing the 
> same tune it sounds like you are; they are chomping at the 
> bit to get a chance to step in and "save the Internet".
> 
> I'll respond with some longer thoughts tomorrow.  Between 
> Tony's and Jim's last response, I have some thinking to do to 
> see how it might be made to work technically and politically 
> with some of the caveats they mention.
> 
> One of my open thoughts, is if I have PA space, can I get 
> somehow get routing service (multi-homing) from more than the 
> single ISP that provided the addressing?
> 
> Take care
> Terry
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based on IPv6") 
> > [
	    
	    
]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:53 AM
> > To: 'Bound, Jim'; 'Tony Hain'; 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Davis, Terry L;
> ollivier.robert@localhost
> > narten@localhost 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; 'Pouffary,
> Yanick';
> > 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> > Subject: RE: Question
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The technical community should fix this one before the ITU sees this
> as
> > another chance to have a political say on the IPv6 
> addressing. These 
> > things leak fast. My advice is that ARIN should seriously own this 
> > issue
> before
> > the
> > ITU turns it to a sovereignty issue, which they could for sure win
> this
> > time. I know one of their noodles is sizzling at it.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Latif
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bound, Jim [
	    
	    
]
> > Sent: 08 April 2006 14:52
> > To: Tony Hain; PPML; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > Cc: Richard Jimmerson; Latif Ladid ("The New Internet based 
> on IPv6"); 
> > Davis, Terry L; ollivier.robert@localhost narten@localhost
> Brig,
> > Michael P CIV DISA GES-E; Pouffary, Yanick; Green, David B RDECOM
> CERDEC
> > STCD SRI; Bound, Jim
> > Subject: RE: Question
> > 
> > Tony,
> > 
> > Excellent response and educational for sure.  It is my 
> belief that the 
> > corporate business model today for operating networks may be broken
> and I
> > think you supported that below?  If not my apologies for 
> bad parsing?
> > 
> > 
> > Their models were fine for an IPv4 world where NAT was required and
> some
> > even confuse NAT with securing ones network (and some 
> programs in the
> U.S.
> > Government) and that is simply bad policy and view.
> > 
> > In the interim can this be resolved by RIRs creating some kind of 
> > additional wording that address reclaim will be done in 
> manner that is
> negotiable,
> > and
> > do no harm to corporate or government business operations?  
> This would
> buy
> > us time to work on the issue and stop the FUD around this topic?
> > 
> > Also I am willing to sponsor a world wide IPv6 Forum BOF on PI and 
> > addressing you can lead as ajunct to one of our regular meetings you
> can
> > lead for an entire day and we get the right players in the room.  So
> think
> > about that as another option too.
> > 
> > But do enjoy the beach this thread does not have to be resolved this
> week
> > :--)
> > 
> > Really want to hear from all of you and discussion Terry D., Latif,
> Yanick,
> > Dave G. Mike B. etc.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > /jim
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Hain [
	    
	    
]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 7:57 PM
> > > To: 'PPML'; address-policy-wg@localhost
> > > Cc: 'Richard Jimmerson'; Bound, Jim; 'Latif Ladid ("The 
> New Internet 
> > > based on IPv6")'; 'Davis, Terry L'; 
> ollivier.robert@localhost 
> > > narten@localhost 'Brig, Michael P CIV DISA GES-E'; Pouffary,
> Yanick;
> > > 'Green, David B RDECOM CERDEC STCD SRI'
> > > Subject: RE: Question
> > >
> > > A public answer to a private question as I have been sitting on a 
> > > beach for awhile without the laptop and missed some related 
> > > conversations ... :)
> > >
> > > > Is the outcome really open for discussion on the PI issue?
> > > It doesn't
> > > > sound like it is.
> > >
> > > In the minds of some the route scaling issue outweighs 
> any argument 
> > > for PI.
> > > When taken to its extreme, there is a valid point that a broken 
> > > routing system serves no one. At the same time the dogmatic stance
> by
> > > the ISPs enforcing lock-in is just as broken both for large 
> > > organizations with financial or legal requirements for 
> operational 
> > > stability, and the individual consumer/small business 
> with limited 
> > > budgets looking for true competition. The hard part is 
> finding the 
> > > middle ground in a way that limits the exposure to a potential
> routing
> > > collapse.
> > >
> > > I personally refuse to declare some needs legitimate and 
> others not, 
> > > as the only point of such differentiation is to establish a power 
> > > broker. When all uses are legitimate, the problem boils 
> down to the 
> > > technical approach that can be scaled as necessary to 
> contain growth 
> > > in the routing system.
> > > This is the logic that leads me to the bit-interleaved 
> geo that can
> be
> > > aggregated in varying size pockets as necessary using 
> existing BGP 
> > > deployments. We can start flat and implement aggregation 
> over time 
> > > when a region becomes too large to handle. One nice side 
> effect of 
> > > this geo approach is that it mitigates the continuing political 
> > > demands for sovereign rights to IPv6 space.
> > >
> > > Any aggregation approach will force the business models to change
> from
> > > current practice. That is not as bad a thing as the 
> alarmists will 
> > > make it out to be, because their accountants are claiming the
> current
> > > model is a broken money looser as it is (which if so 
> means they will 
> > > eventually change anyway). The primary difference is that 
> there will 
> > > need to be aggregation intermediaries between the last-mile and 
> > > transit providers. The current model eliminates these 
> middle-men by 
> > > trading off their routing mitigation service against a larger
> routing
> > > table (actually they already exist in the right places but are 
> > > currently limited to layer2 media aggregators). The 
> anti-PI bunch is 
> > > trying to use social engineering to directly counter the 
> bottom line 
> > > business reality that the customer will always win in the end.
> > > Rather than accept this situation and constructively work on the 
> > > necessary business model and technology developments, they
> effectively
> > > stall progress by staunchly claiming there is no acceptable
> technical
> > > approach that works within the current business structure.
> > >
> > > Making the RIRs be the police deciding who qualifies for 
> PI and who 
> > > does not just adds to their workload and raises costs. The 
> > > beneficiaries of this gatekeeper approach are the ISPs that claim
> they
> > > need full routing knowledge everywhere, while the cost burden for 
> > > supporting the waste-of-time qualification/evaluation 
> work is borne
> by
> > > the applicant.
> > > Given that the most vocal and organized membership in the RIR 
> > > community are the ISPs it is easy to understand why it would seem
> like
> > > the PI issue is already decided as closed. I tend to 
> believe it will 
> > > just drag out until enough of the corporate world becomes aware of
> the
> > > IPv4 exhaustion in light of their growth needs that they
> collectively
> > > appear at their RIR and demand an immediate solution. 
> Unfortunately 
> > > this 'wait till the last minute' tactic will likely result in a 
> > > reactionary quickie with its own set of long term side effects.
> > >
> > > A while back I tried to hold a BOF on geo PI in the IETF, but was
> told
> > > that
> > > shim6 was the anointed solution. Now that at least nanog has told
> the
> > > IAB where to put shim6 it might be possible to get the 
> current IESG
> to
> > > reconsider. In any case the result would be a technical approach
> that
> > > would still require RIRs to establish policies around. As long as
> they
> > > are dominated by the ISPs it will be difficult to get real PI.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > >
> 
> 

Attachment: RIR IPv6 Allocations to March 31 2006.xls
Description: RIR IPv6 Allocations to March 31 2006.xls