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

Jordi,

Having recently experienced current RIPE policy on IPv6 Address Allocation, I cannot figure out David Conrad's outburst and felt I needed to put in my penny's worth as a countermeasure.

>> It is clear that there are small Internet Service providers (ISPs) 
>> that do not currently have 200 customers, consequently is not feasible 
>> for them to make “at least 200 /48” assignments in two years. It is, 
>> however, unfair that these ISPs have no access to
>> IPv6 address space.

>I'm confused.  According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the existing policy doesn't require requesters to have >200 customers.  All that it requires is that an LIR not be an end site, provide IPv6 connectivity, and "have a >plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years."

>Note it says "a plan".  An organization incapable of coming up with _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more
>significant problems than not having IPv6 space. 

It seems that a number of people at the helm of the Internet decision process need some exposure to realities of the ISP business and more specifically to the issues related to the introduction of IPv6. I had never questioned RIPE policies on IPv4 assignments even though they may seemed at times overly bureaucratic. If anything, of late, I believe they're a wee bit laxing. I've seen /20s being assigned to Garage operations!! Dangerous when you think of all the fuss about IPv4 running out! Anyway, to come back to Dave Conrad, the issue here is IPv6. That is what changes everything.

We have over /17 of IPv4 address space allocated. We have over 20,000 broadband customers and well over 200 clients that would benefit from Ipv6 assignments and who now either have a /24 to /28 or use NAT. We also operate a small transit network and are linked to a major European Tier1 provider. Finally we are part of an Ipv6 task force trying to determine the future direction of IPv6 rollout. But basically I CANNOT have a plan, at this stage for /48 on Ipv6. Its WAY too early. On the other hand we are upgrading our kit as part of the normal hardware lifetime updates and we consider this the right time to go for Ipv6 peering. Like Tim in his submission I could EASILY put a plan together contradicting my current reality... But why should I lie to RIPE? 

And one final thing, we're talking about IPv6. The addressing space that can allow 2000 addresses per square meter on the planet as some of the current cliches go... We're established and qualified in the business but I have to beg, grovel or lie to get  this allocation!! THAT is confusing

Stephen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of David Conrad
> Sent: L-Erbgħa, 7 ta' Ġunju 2006 21:54
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 
> 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and 
> Assignment Policy)
> 
> Jordi,
> 
> Unlurking from the sidelines and speaking only for myself, 
> some comments on your proposal:
> 
> > It is clear that there are small Internet Service providers (ISPs) 
> > that do not currently have 200 customers, consequently is 
> not feasible 
> > for them to make “at least 200 /48” assignments in two 
> years. It is, 
> > however, unfair that these ISPs have no access to
> > IPv6 address space.
> 
> I'm confused.  According to RIPE-267 (section 5.1.1), the 
> existing policy doesn't require requesters to have 200 
> customers.  All that it requires is that an LIR not be an end 
> site, provide IPv6 connectivity, and "have a plan for making 
> at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations within two years."
> 
> Note it says "a plan".  An organization incapable of coming 
> up with _a plan_ to allocate 200 /48s has more significant 
> problems than not having IPv6 space.
> 
> > In some cases, organisations may have a small number of sites, but 
> > still need their own block so that they can avoid future 
> renumbering, 
> > if they change their upstream provider or identify a need to become 
> > Multihomed.
> 
> Can you identify an organization that does not want to avoid 
> renumbering or which might not identify a need to be multihomed?
> 
> > b) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to other organisations 
> or to its 
> > own/related departments/entities/sites to which it will 
> assign / 48s 
> > by advertising that connectivity through a single 
> aggregated address 
> > allocation
> >
> > and
> > c) have a plan for making a reasonable number of /48 assignments 
> > within two years
> 
> I have a couple of LANs at my house.  A /48 for each LAN 
> sounds reasonable to me.  Does that justify an IPv6 /32?
> 
> 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?
> 
> > a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal
> ...
> > The difficulty encountered in receiving IPv6 address space 
> by some big 
> > entities that have a need to use IPv6 is a clear barrier for its 
> > deployment.
> 
> 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.
> 
> > By setting up this policy, we would avoid creating an 
> unfair situation 
> > among different RIR service regions. Other RIRs have 
> already modified 
> > the original IPv6 common policy to avoid these barriers.
> 
> http://www.bumperart.com/ProductDetails.aspx? 
> SKU=2004011203&productID=523
> 
> > We could possibly say that an arbitrary number of sites in order to 
> > qualify for an allocation could be considered illegal in some 
> > countries. The RIPE community cannot set policies that could prove 
> > unlawful as this could have important implications.
> 
> 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) that requires IP 
> address space to be allocated by that country's government.  
> Should RIPE therefore only allocate address space to governments?
> 
> > 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".
> 
> > Opposing arguments should avoid being unfair to smaller ISPs that 
> > could not justify a fixed number of assignments.
> 
> Is it unfair that carriers that fly Boeing 747s get more 
> revenues than carriers that fly Saab 340s?
> 
> 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.
> 
> > Such a policy could be seen as irrational
> 
> "In an insane world the sane man must appear insane" -- Spock
> 
> > and might be comparable with imposing a similar requirement for
> > IPv4 address space allocations, which the community would 
> be unlikely 
> > to accept.
> 
> In at least one region, initial allocations of PI IPv4 
> required demonstration of utilization of half the initial PI 
> allocation, so in essence, there was an implicit requirement 
> to meet a fixed number to justify an allocation.  Of course, 
> this wasn't in the RIPE region, but weren't you the one 
> arguing that the other regions have a similar policy to what 
> you propose as justification for your proposal?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
>