[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Thus spake "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
1. Each assignment must be accompanied by a recurring fee (at least
1000-2000 USD/EUR a year, preferably 5000+). This is peanuts
(compared to other costs) to anyone who actually needs this
multihoming solution. However, this ensures at least some minimum
usage barrier ("those who don't really need this can use different
multihoming solutions"), and recovery of the resources back to RIR
after the company has gone bankrupt or no longer needs the addresses.
If you don't know where to put the extra money, donate it to ISOC or
something.
I think that the multihoming requirement will be enough to keep the number
of assignments reasonable; if you look at the actual number of non-transit
ASNs in the v4 table, it's not all that large. If we assume one PIv6 prefix
per non-transit ASN, which is the goal, we're looking at under 10k routes
from the ARIN region.
As has been discussed at ARIN, this is a good way to get the
government to declare the RIR a monopoly engaging in anticompetitive
behavior. I for one don't want that.
I don't think that follows, but unless ARIN legal counsel or someone
who is a real lawyer has made a statement here, I'm not sure how
seriously to take this. Pointer to such official legal counsel would
be appreciated.
That is, ARIN has every right to require, for example, that everyone
getting a prefix is (for instance) a member of ARIN, and charging for
the membership should be OK.
I'd want a lawyer to sign off on it. You're talking about deliberately
charging an excessive fee to make it more difficult for smaller companies to
compete with larger ones. That has the appearance of an industry cartel
creating artificial barriers to lock their smaller competitors out of the
market, and the FTC generally doesn't like that.
Then again, IANAL.
RIRs run on non-profit principle, but nothing precludes them from
increasing the expenses, e.g., for donations to make the internet a
better place,
That's an interesting thought, but siphoning off fees for other purposes (no
matter how noble or popular) is a slippery slope. Let's keep the RIRs
focused on what they were created for and on a cost-recovery basis, and
members who want to donate to ISOC or other groups can do so.
setting a foundation for multihoming research to actually SOLVE this
problem, etc.etc.
In theory, we already have a group tasked with that: the IETF. Are you
proposing that RIRs start developing protocols outside the IETF? Or funding
people to work full-time in the IETF on problems pertinent to RIRs? Again,
this is a slippery slope and distracts from the RIRs' purpose.
I definitely encourage the folks that are against PIv6 to work on better
solutions, but IMHO the RIRs are not the correct vehicle or forum for that.
ARIN is already treading on thin ice by rejecting the IETF's addressing
plan.
2. one-size-fits-all assignments, period. You get a /48 or /32 (I
don't have much preference here), but you must not be able to justify
for larger space. This is to avoid the organization from getting a
larger block and chopping it into smaller pieces and polluting the
global routing table with more specifics which would get past prefix
length filters.
With the current ARIN policy proposal, you'd get a /48, with a /44
reserved for growth. Would you advocate giving everyone a /44 up front
instead? Or something else? I don't have too much preference here,
FWIW.
I wouldn't object to reserving a /44 just in case, but make no
provisions (at this point) for applying more. If someone needs more
than /48, it needs to justify another one, and get a separate /48
(with its own reserved /44).
So instead of giving an org a /47, which _could_ be advertised as a single
route, you'd prefer to give them two /48s, which _must_ be advertised as two
routes? That seems to increase routing table pollution, not reduce it.
Also, what's the point of reserving a /44, or worse multiple /44s, if we're
only going to let people use a /48? That seems to defeat the purpose of
having a reserved block.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin
