Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)

[Carlos Friacas cfriacas@localhost]

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!"