Opposed - the simple view. Why is the need for an IPv6 "Inter-regional" policy justifiable?
IPv6 addresses are/were meant to be used in global architecture by design; I remember an early selling feature being the scope for inter-planetary expansion. Therefore, the five RIR's should only have policies for equitable distribution based on the technicality and legalities of their various zones. In my opinion, once distributed, those addresses should default back to IANA to manage under a single global policy. The RIR's can then continue to manage the distribution/routing records on behalf of IANA. It seems to me, that by placing policy restrictions on IPv6 addresses, we are saddling this wonderful protocol with IPv4 design limitations. Orin Roberts Bell Canada -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: March-26-19 6:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers I am opposed. IPv6 policies have been designed from the beginning to limit the growth of the global routing tables. Policies such as sparse assignment help with this goal, as well as the development of means to renumber with relative ease, compared to IPv4. This is because more than one upstream can be advertised at the same time and in the same network. A RFC compliant host will by default assign addresses in each subnet that it hears router advertisements and spread its outgoing traffic between the available upstream routers. Unlike IPv4, we are nowhere near exhaust, and there is no need to get into the legacy transfer issue with IPv6. I would perfer to allow each IPv6 block assigned to a RIR to remain 100% under the control of that RIR. If transfers are possible, this fact alone can be used to defeat the trust anchor. It is unclear to me what the trust anchor problem actually is, and why it needs to lead to the explosion of the IPv6 DFZ because of transfers. If there is an issue of ARIN policy regarding trust anchors compared to other RIR's, this policy should instead be addressed instead of allowing transfers as a work around to a bad ARIN policy. Ideally, IPv6 blocks should be obtained from the upstream ISP/LIR and they should be routed to the default route, with only one route per ISP/LIR. Since the "normal" site assignment is a /48, unlike IPv4, there is no shortage of address space for any use without involvement of ARIN or other RIR. If one needs to be multihomed, each host can have an address from each available upstream, providing availability to each host from more than one network. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, ARIN wrote: > On 21 March 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-263: > Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers" as a Draft Policy. > > The Draft Policy text is below and can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_4/ > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this > draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy > as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these > principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers > > Problem Statement: > > There is an operational need to allow RIR transfers of IPv6 resources > between RIRs with an equivalent transfer policy. ARIN’s RPKI Trust > Anchor (TA) is measurably less widely deployed than TAs from other > RIRs. As a consequence, RPKI ROAs published through ARIN offer less > value. Operators seeking to extract the most value from their > investment in IPv6 would benefit from the ability to transfer IPv6 > resources to RIRs with more widely deployed RPKI Trust Anchors. > > Policy Statement: > > Change the first sentence in section 8.4 from: > > “Inter-regional transfers of IPv4 number resources and ASNs may take > place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, > compatible needs-based policies.” > > To: > > “Inter-regional transfers of Internet number resources may take place > only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, > compatible needs-based policies.” > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
