The point isn't the size of the block, it's the cost of the route.
-Bill
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 08:23, Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
>
> Your point is valid and I agree that IPv6 doesn’t need those needs tests
> except maybe for large blocks. The routing table is always an issue, but if
> we want IPv6 to become the standard we should follow Jon Postel’s model of
> making it easy to get IPv6 resources. Since there is a yearly fee to get
> IPv6, organizations will only purchase what they need since they can get more
> and that is all of the needs testing needed for smaller blocks of IPv6. My
> two cents.
>
>
> Steven Ryerse
> President
> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
> www.eclipse-networks.com
> 770.656.1460 - Cell
> 770.399.9099- Office
>
> <image001.jpg>℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Gary T. Giesen
> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:37 AM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Pleasedon't
> me make do ULA + NAT66)
>
> PPML,
>
> I’d like to discuss what I perceive as a gap in the IPv6 End User policy.
>
> Under the NRPM Section 4.3, there are virtually no requirements for an
> initial IPv4 assignment to end users, other than the minimum allocation size
> is a /24 and a 50% (128 addresses) within one year. Under the analogous IPv6
> section (6.5.8), an End User can only quality for a direct assignment from
> ARIN if they meet one of the following criteria:
>
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or one
> of its predecessor registries, or;
> b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6 Multihomed
> and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
> c. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6
> addresses within 12 months, or;
> d. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64
> subnets within 12 months, or;
> e. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6
> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
>
>
> The IPv4 policy has no multihoming requirement, and a vastly lower minimum
> host count. While the IPv6 policy does try to address some of the economic
> pain of renumbering, I don’t think it goes far enough.
>
> Real life scenario:
>
> 1) Customer with 50 locations (IPVPN) spread across the country/continent
> 2) 10 staff per location (average; 500 total)
> 3) 20 devices per location (average; 1000 total)
> 4) 2 subnets (voice & data) per location (average, 100 total)
> 5) Not multihomed
> 6) Currently using RFC1918 IPv4 space + NAT
>
>
> You may think my example is contrived, but is actually my typical customer.
> Based on my reading of the NRPM, this customer does not qualify for a direct
> allocation from ARIN. I’d argue, however that the economic costs to this
> customer renumbering are far greater than another customer who has 2000 staff
> or 200 subnets located within a few locations in the same metro area.
>
> Now I suppose the simple answer is for my customer is to go get an IPv4 /24
> (which would automatically qualify them for an IPv6 allocation under 6.5.8.1
> (a)), but I think that’s a waste of time and resources when:
>
> a) We’ve accepted NAT in the IPv4 world is a fact of life, but in IPv6
> it’s the exception rather than the norm
> b) IPv4 is the constrained resource, yet it seems to be more readily
> available to end users
> c) We’re hinging IPv6 deployments on IPv4 deployments, which seems
> counter-intuitive to me (we should be making IPv6 more accessible than IPv4
> to encourage adoption, rather than the other way around)
>
>
> I’m actively engaged in convincing my customers to adopt IPv6 (rather than
> waiting for them to ask for it), but it’s a tough sell already without the
> problem of them having to renumber their entire network should they no longer
> be my customer. The only alternative left to me is ULA addressing (which
> still doesn’t guarantee uniqueness) + NAT66 (which is still very poorly
> supported in applications – meaning a poor user experience). I believe it is
> commonly held amongst this community that IPv6 is supposed to restore the
> end-to-end principle of the Internet (that is my belief as well), but IPv6
> won’t get deployed in this fashion if it’s going to be too painful to deploy
> or move.
>
> So here’s my proposed solution: Make direct assignments available to any end
> user who qualifies for at least a /40 (13+ sites). I think this addresses
> most problems with routing table growth (by not handing out a direct /48 to
> every mom and pop shop out there), addresses most of my customers’ concerns
> with having to renumber dozens of sites, and doesn’t force customers to get
> IPv4 /24’s just to get the IPv6 resources they need.
>
> Thoughts/criticisms/questions/concerns?
>
> GTG
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
