[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Hi Eric,

>> I don't support this policy as it stands, because it makes it too
>> easy to get PI space instead of PA space.  This will cause
>> deaggregation in the ipv6 DFZ.
> 
> I don't think it would cause de-aggregation (for definition how I see
> it, announcing a single allocation into smaller subnets), but it might
> bring more prefixes in the DFZ.

That'll teach me a thing or two about attempting to write a coherent email
before coffee o'clock on a Monday morning, sigh.

Of course, I didn't mean "deaggregation", but was rather talking about
excessive growth of the ipv6 dfz due to the announcement of large numbers
of ipv6 PI blocks from end users who would do just as well to use PA.

There is ample evidence of ipv4 PI address space being used as a generic
substitute for PA space in certain geographic regions, and there are no
good reasons to think that the situation will be any different for ipv6.

Once a swamp is created, it is virtually impossible to drain.

> What I did already see is v6 PA space being handed out to customers and 
> being announced in smaller prefixes under another AS than the /32 PA
> that it came from.

Yes, that happens.  Some end-users do this for (e.g.) load balancing purposes.

> Personally I think that providing evidence is open for motivational 
> discussions. If one can motivate why he/she requires PI, they should get
> it. I rather don't see such a arguable line taken up in the policy, but
> much rather see an increase in the (financial) cost for becoming a LIR
> AND specifically the cost for PI.

If an end user requires PI, then they should have a reason for requiring
it.  I don't want to see PI prefixes handed out like packs of Smarties,
because that is objectively harmful to the Internet.  I.e. it has a direct
impact on the bottom line of service provider budgets.

> Along the same line as 2006-05 is, stop BS'ing to the IPRA's, tell them
> what you / your customer require, without inflating the story.

The changes in 2006-05 are twofold: 1. to allow multihoming as a valid
reason for applying and 2. to set the minimum size for prefixes which will
be multihomed to be the de-facto /24 that is generally accepted in the
Internet dfz.  #2 levels the field slightly with respect to the difference
in assignment criteria between ipv4 and ipv6.

There's nothing in 2006-05 which suggests that the end user doesn't need to
provide a reason for requiring PI.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

> What is the ONLY reason why an end-customer would return their IP
> addresses ? A financial reason. I dare to say that a lot of space is not
> returned, because the end-customer or the LIR doesn't feel the pain (the
> upkeep cost) for it.
> 
> Increasing the cost for PI will be the way to make sure that
> end-customers are going to think twice. Do I really need this, or is it
> just cool to have.
> 
> However, the RIPE community can't dictate the cost for PI, as that is to
> be decided in the AGM meeting by the member votes.

It's more difficult than this.  Because of the sheer numbers of PI
assignments, increasing the "wholesale" cost even by a small amount will
have a significant impact on the RIPE NCC's budget.  That would create...
awkward bureaucratic problems for the RIPE NCC.

Nick