[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 01:22, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
>
> In IPv4, it's enough to have a valid TECHNICAL reason to need an ASN
> (multihoming), and you get one. Same goes for a PI. You need addresses,
> you get addresses. All you need is a sponsoring LIR (which you usually
> pay for that service, directly or indirectly). And now in IPv6 with
> an address space of 128 bits compared to 32 bits you suddenly say that
> "needing address space" is not a good enough reason anymore?
>
erm, no.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot use multihoming as a sole 
technical reason for PI space in the RIPE region - you've still to justify 
a /24.

I agree with most of what you are saying Daniel.

My personal opinion (after far too much wine) is that the routers will 
probably be able to cope with anything that is thrown at them (again, I don't 
have the facts to back this statement up nor the knowledge to work it out - 
so don't ask for them Randy, other people know far more about what's on the 
horizon that I could ever hope to).

Iljitsch, if you choose to take full routes then the cost of memory etc is 
you're burden - that after all is the perk of being a provider - whether you 
pass it on is entirely up to you.

What I think we're talking about is:
1) free for all - not a good idea, which I think everyone agrees on.
2) a compromise between routing table growth and 1), which needs policies, 
which in turn must be set by the RIR's.

I still think policy shouldn't be made until we know for certain exactly what 
multi6 are proposing (shim6 or whatever) and we need to see it in writing so 
to speak (ie they produce the actual docs) - the routers will cope I've 
already said, but that doesn't mean I believe in a free for all.

Throwing out conservation just because the v6 address range is so vast is 
plain stupidity - the past, in my mind, exists for one reason, so that we can 
learn from it (I might not, but that's a personal problem or at least SWMBO 
tells me so). ISP's might need a /32 (doubtful in most cases) but enterprises 
DO NOT. Yes, enterprises need to multihome (same as ISP's do) but they do not 
need nor will they ever need a /32 (or even a /48 for that matter). How many 
enterprises currently use a class 'A' in current v4 space - and I mean really 
use - I think that question answers itself.

If the routing table grows, then surely that's part of being a provider.
Iljisch, who pays for it ? - you do. And ultimately, your customers. So that's 
unfair to customers, so what that's life.

Should we open up RIPE address space to anyone who can afford to pay and can 
justify the address usage - erm, sorry but, that's already the situation. You 
want PA space and can afford it, then you can afford to pay someone who can 
get it - EOS - it's not hard to justify space, a lot of hassle and creative 
thinking maybees but not hard.

I've had far too much to drink and I don't see a need to waste address space a 
second time. IMHO the routers will be able to handle the growth. The 
providers will pass the cost of routing on (so what if that leads to a 
consolidation of the ISP market - it's going to happen anyway) and the world 
will go on, but at the end of the day v6 must happen and for that to occur we 
need a multi-homing solution which when it boils down to it, is what this is 
all about.

Jon