I am the proposal author and I will be withdrawing the proposal in light of the routing issue.
I believe there is a valid concern in IPv6 PA re-addressing for SMBs as outlined in the proposal, but they are occasional and minor in comparison to the routing issues presented by expanding PI availability of smaller assignments. Thank you. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 12:24 PM To: Larry R. Dockery Cc: David Farmer; [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment Requirements for IPv6 I forgot to mention that I am OPPOSED to this. I see the router slots in the DFZ of IPv6 as the limiting factor, and we should not hand out PI addresses to those that are not actively using them to multihome on larger networks. I agree with leaving the current standards that require a minimum number of IPv6 addresses in order to receive PI addresses. By default, most providers give out more addresses than anyone needs. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Mon, 13 Sep 2021, Larry R. Dockery wrote: > > Thank you for your time in providing this information. This is the best > argument against the proposal. > > > > If this is a significant issue and holds true, then 1) most organizations do > not and should not qualify for PI space. And 2) These orgs should, per the > design recommendation in “IPv6 Address Planning”, use NTPv6 with ULA > internally to avoid ISP lock-in inherent with IPV6 PA space. > > > > This is far better than IPv4 NAT + RFC1918 in that it is stateless, but is an > unfortunate workaround that somewhat inhibits the end-to-end principle. > > > > That would be an unfortunate end-state for IPv6 that most SMB’s are still > behind NAT, but may be the best technical way forward. > > > > > > From: David Farmer <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:32 AM > To: Larry R. Dockery <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal - Remove Initial Small Assignment > Requirements for IPv6 > > > > The intent behind section 6.5.8.1 is not to conserve IPv6 address space but > to conserve slots in the IPv6 route table, AKA the default-free zone. The > abundance of /48s and /44s, or /40s, /36s, /32s for that matter, are > irrelevant, there is only a finite number of routing slots available. BGP > multihomed > end-users will use a routing slot regardless of the source of the address > space they use, so it is best if it comes from an RIR. However, single-homed > end-users can be aggregated by their provider, yes this comes at a cost of > renumbering for those end-users, but eliminating renumbering for those > end-users > comes at a cost of an IPv6 routing slot for the entire Internet. Therefore > the cost of renumbering born by the end-user has to be balanced against the > cost > of a routing slot born by the entire Internet. > > > > The IPv6 route table is currently growing quite quickly, see the following; > > https://blog.apnic.net/2021/03/03/what-will-happen-when-the-routing-table-hits-1024k/ > > https://blog.apnic.net/2021/01/05/bgp-in-2020-the-bgp-table/ > > https://blog.apnic.net/2020/01/14/bgp-in-2019-the-bgp-table/ > > https://labs.ripe.net/author/stephen_strowes/visibility-of-ipv4-and-ipv6-prefix-lengths-in-2019/ > > https://bgp.potaroo.net/v6/as2.0/index.html > > https://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/weekly/2021/37/ > > > > The current 6.5.8.1.c was adapted from the IPv4 requirements when Draft > Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria was adopted. At that time > IPv4 > slow-start was still in effect, and there was still an IPv4 free pool. When > the IPv4 transfer market became the primary source of IPv4 address space, > slow-start was no longer practical or functional, and the initial allocation > for IPv4 was changed. However, for IPv4 there is now the additional cost of > obtaining the IPv4 block on the transfer market which somewhat offsets the > removal to slow-start at least to some extent. > > > > So, while I do not support the wholesale removal of section 6.5.8.1, I would > support relaxing, possibly significantly relaxing, or otherwise > modifying 6.5.8.1.c-e which are the current technical qualification for > non-multihomed end-users. Fundamentally, it is not practical to have every > business > that could afford to pay ARIN's fees to avoid renumbering and to receive an > IPv6 routing slot. It is not even entirely clear, there will be sufficient > IPv6 > routing slots for every end-user that is willing to BGP multi-home. > > > > Therefore, I believe there needs some kind of technical criteria that a > non-multihomed end-user needs to meet to qualify to receive a Provider > Independent > IPv6 Allocation, and it needs to be more than just the ability to pay ARIN's > fees. > > > > And for clarity, I do not support the proposal as written. > > > > Thanks. > > > > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:51 AM Larry R. Dockery <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2021/ARIN_prop_301_orig/ > > > > I would like to hear community feedback on this proposal. Thank you. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > _______________________________________________ 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.
