My first idea was submitting a PI IPv6 policy proposal next Monday to RIPE
and the rest of the regions, trying to get a consensus for a "global" policy
on this, but as this thread is being followed up in several mail exploders,
to avoid a long cross-posting, I think it will be better to start some
discussion already in a mailing list which is global, and actually I think
we have the right one ... global-v6@lists.apnic.net
De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Responder a: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:39:07 +0200
Para: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" v6ops@ops.ietf.org, "ppml@arin.net"
ppml@arin.net, "shim6@psg.com" shim6@psg.com
Conversación: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
Hi Owen,
You said it: If somebody find the good solution, it will be attractive to
the people to go for it. Otherwise, you always have the chance to become an
LIR. My proposal actually is already considering this point and a way to
avoid a need for renumbering if that happens.
I just want to make sure that we have a way-out if it becomes necessary, but
avoid a showstopper now. I think is it possible.
I don't have a technical solution yet (and agree with your views on this in
the email below in general), but I'm confident we will have. If it will take
4 years from now, or just 2, who knows, so my proposal is ensuring that we
have those 4 years+3 for allowing the people either to return the block, or
become an LIR and avoid renumbering an any changes in their network.
By the way, it may happen, and I'm hoping so, that the technical solution
don't make necessary to return the PI block anymore, and in that case, we
will be even able to remove at that time the "temporarily" point in the
policy (if it becomes accepted).
Regards,
Jordi
De: Owen DeLong owen@delong.com
Responder a: owen@delong.com
Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:48:34 -0700
Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, "v6ops@ops.ietf.org"
v6ops@ops.ietf.org,
"ppml@arin.net" ppml@arin.net, "shim6@psg.com" shim6@psg.com
Asunto: Re: [ppml] PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
--On April 14, 2006 12:20:06 PM +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet@consulintel.es wrote:
[snip]
However, I want to balance this with the medium-long term implications
created in the routing table and with the time needed to build and deploy
a better technical solution (or several) which is accepted by the
community.
I think we first need to define what we consider a solution... See below.
So my proposal basically is about having PI now everywhere (once ARIN
adopt it, is unfair not having it in other regions), but those PI
allocations for multihoming should be temporary and those address blocks
returned to the RIRs some time (lets say 3 years) after the new technical
solution is declared as a valid one.
I would not actually support this idea. The whole point of having PI
space is to have the addresses for a long-term. Having a timeframe for
return would simply restore the same barrier to entry that existed
prior to passing the policy.
Other RIRs are free to implement whatever v6 PI policy they feel is
appropriate for their region. I would support a globally standardized
v6 PI policy along the lines of ARIN 2005-1.
However, I would like to argue that if the new technical solution will
benefit from the return of this address space, it is most likely not
truly a solution, but, instead, another clever hack piled on top of
the existing set of hacks.
I suppose if someone found the magic bullet to make geotopological
addressing really work, that might qualify. However, I have very low
expectations in that area.
Absent that, any true solution will involve making the size of the routing
table independent of the number of PI (or even PA) blocks issued by
the RIRs or will make the size of the routing table practically
irrelevant.
I know this isn't the easy solution, but, we need to look long and
hard at the way we do things. I think that solving these problems
is going to require a significant paradigm shift. Assuming that we
can use IP addresses for both end system identification and for
routing topology indicators is how we created this problem. I don't
see solving it without breaking that assumption, at least at the
interdomain level.
At this way, on the long-run, we will not have routing table implications,
but we allow now the people that want to move ahead only if they have a
multihoming solution doing so.
If you think there is a possible solution (a real solution, not just
a hack that postpones the inevitable at the expense of usability
like CIDR did), then I'd like to hear what you are thinking.
This 3-years time for getting a multihoming network back to the new
technical solution (once adopted) is enough time, I think (it could be
changed to 5 years if needed, or whatever), so nobody today see the
temporarily of the proposal as a showstopper to go for it now.
I think you underestimate the momentum and requirements of the modern
enterprise if you believe that to be true. Any capability available
in v4 that is not available on at least equal or better terms in v6
is a deterrent to v6 deployment.
The ability to get permanent addresses which do not have to be returned
when you switch providers or renumbered on a schedule determined by
some external organization is a major example of such a capability.
Owen
--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
