[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

On Apr 16, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 04:33:10PM +0200, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>> In which case HD-ratio will apply, or at least I assume RIPE-301, 2.6
>> would equally apply to IPv6 as it does to IPv4.
>
> First of all, one doesn't have to close/merge LIR if "can afford" it.
> Moreover, existing LIR can (there is simplification here):
> 1. setup new LIR (withing the same organization; for example in  
> another
> country, part of country, with different funds, etc.),
> 2. send RIPE-425 form,
> 3. obtain another allocation (probably /32).
> I assume, that in most cases this first IPv6 allocation is more than
> enough and HD-ratio in this scenario is not used.
> Note that there are organizations which (ab)use the current policy  
> using
> that method just to obtain another "initial" allocation and this is
> exactly "you get as much address as you can afford" which is not a  
> good
> policy.


Then maybe this is another hole that needs plugging, but I think we  
have to realise that we problem won't solve all of the world's  
problems right here and now.

As Leo already suggested, opening up a new LIR will introduce some  
burden in the form of costs and overhead which will probably make  
people think twice about what they are doing and wether or not it is  
absolutely neccessary. Further that new LIR has to comply with the  
normal procedures and policies, which makes me think that this might  
help to achieve goals like fairness, registration and traceabillity.

So yes, I understand your problem and I'm happy to voice my support  
for a proposal to solve it, as long as it is a good one and IMHO this  
isn't such a proposal. In the past few days various other solutions  
have been posted:

- Open a second LIR
- Use PI (in the works)
- sub-allocated from the initial /32 (Like RIPE-449 allows for IPv4)

And in fact we can even start a debate wether or not the current  
document (RIPE-450), although stating you MUST announce the allocated  
prefix as a whole, forbids you from deaggregating and announcing more  
specifics for that allocation as well. And yes this will put some  
additional strain on the routing table and create some extra BGP  
noise, but the same applies for the original concept of allocating an  
additional /32. The other big objections I read are concerning the  
filters. Routabillity of address blocks (any address block) is as  
always not guarenteed and routing policy for individual networks is  
way out of scope for this WG or the RIPE NCC as a whole. Maybe you  
should follow up to the IETF and draft a BCP on IPv6 route filtering,  
otherwise I guess the market will eventually solve it, if it turns out  
to really be a problem, and alter the filters.

In the meantime the original proposal slipped into one where HD-ratio  
is being traded for scoring points. Call me old-fashioned,  
conservative or other, but I think that, although IPv6 'provides  
enough address space to last us a lifetime',  we should still keep  
those old values like address space conservation and a fair and level  
playing field to distribute them in mind when creating or applying  
policies.

To me a large part of what you are saying, in v4 land can would be put  
under 'administrative ease' which by RIPE-449 is not a valid reason  
for assignment and I personally don't see reasons to allow it for IPv6  
even when it's not explicitly stated in the policy document.

If somebody wants to rewrite this proposal, taking the comments made  
on this list into account or if you want to draft a new one, seeking  
another solution for this problem, I'm happy to help and make some  
time available.

As it currently stands I cannot voice support for this proposal and  
it's very unlikely that this will happen in the future, unless changes  
are made.

Greetings,

MarcoH