who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Fri Nov 19 22:56:17 UTC 2004

> The RIRs' current business models (charging rent for WHOIS and DNS
> entries) are not compatible with the needs that the IPv6 WG defined,
> particularly in the cost and paperwork areas.  The odds of success appear
> to favor a new entity for a new function instead of leeching off an old
> entity that was designed for a different purpose.
>
Then there is a disconnect between the world of the working group and the
operational reality of running a network in my opinion.  I just don't
see $100/year regardless of size as being a financial barrier to end-sites.
When you consider that the average organization these days appears to have
at least half a dozen domains, and, domains are usually ~$15/year each,
there's just not a big price difference between the domain space and the
IP space.

>> Why set up a separate registry system for
>> these addresses instead of making minor changes to the existing one to
>> accommodate this need?  There is no reason to invent the square wheel
>> manufacturing plant when we have a perfectly good round-wheel plant which
>> can be easily retooled for a fraction of the cost.
>
> If ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, or AfriNIC wish to provide the service
> specified in the draft, they're welcome to volunteer for that function.
> That some folks have considered ULAs a "threat to ARIN's viability" is an
> indication that it isn't likely.
>
Mandating that registration be performed as a free service in perpituity is
not a sustainable model.  It is a fictitious concept.  However, a service
temporarily provided poorly for free can still undercut the same service
provided professionally for a reasonable fee to the point of putting the
professional organization out of business.  This is rarely good for the
consumers who later discover that noone is providing the service at any
price because the professionals got out of the business unable to compete
with the freebies, and, the freebies discovered that it cost money to 
provide
the service and walked away too.

> Again, in the IPv6 WG there were folks who offerred to operate the ULA
> registry _for free_, and I'm sure many others would be willing to operate
> it under the initial-cost-only terms in the draft.  The RIRs do not
> appear to be.
>
Did they accept any contractual obligation to do it for any particular
length of time?  Are they identified such that there is accountability to
the community and standards for this process that they must follow?
There are a lot of things involved in running a registry that are simply
not factored into this draft, and, I believe the WG has it's head in the
sand when it comes to what it costs to properly run a registry.

>> But locally-generated ULAs aren't ULAs, they're NLAs, so, what's the
>> point of creating this giant address space for people to allocate from
>> willy-nilly.
>
> The odds of collision in a 2^40 space are low enough to consider even
> locally-generated prefixes unique.  For any practical purposes, both
> ranges are ULAs.
>
Only if there is some mechanism to guarantee good hashing and everyone uses
the same or at least similarly good mechanisms for that hashing.

>> If you want to avoid such collisions as have been the problem with
>> RFC-1918, then, you need an address registry,
>
> That was why a central registry was added to the ULA draft (and later
> split off into a separate draft): some folks, e.g. you, are apparently
> not willing to tolerate the 2^-20 chance of collision with a partner.
> I'll take that over the 100% chance of collision under RFC1918 or Site
> Locals.
>
Sure, but, why not just go to unique addresses and be done with it.

>> and, let's just accept that this isn't a bad thing any more in IPv6 and
>> get the RIRs allocating such space in a reasonable fashion.  I'm
>> perfectly willing to have the RIRs delegate this space from a separate
>> IPv6 block for that purpose, and, the RIRs are capable of doing this.
>> They're already doing it for IPv4 based on 2002-3 and 2003-15.
>
> I'll support unrestricted PI allocations in place of central ULAs, but
> there is still an identifiable need for local ULAs.
>
Why?  Why do you need local ULAs instead of UGAs?  What does a ULA do
for you that a UGA doesn't?

> 2002-3 only applies to multihomed entities and 2003-15 only applies to
> Africa.  ARIN's existing IPv4 policies explicitly tell organizations to
> use private address space and not apply for PI space, though 2004-3 may
> add an exception to allocate PI space if further use of RFC1918 is
> _impossible_. This is far from the direction you imply.
>
My point was that the pricing structure isn't a barrier and that ARIN policy
does and can be changed in response to community need and input.  I think
the chances of getting something more flexible with IPv6 than currently
available with IPv4 should be pretty good.  Especially if the membership
is asked "Would you prefer a competing registry for ULAs or to implement
a v6 assignment policy that allows organizations to get UGAs to meet that
need?"

> And then, of course, there's the issue with paying rent for the rest of
> eternity.
>
It's not rent, it's a registration fee, and, you pay that for your domains
as well.  You pay that for your telephone directory listings.  It's a very
small fee, and, I just don't see that as a meaningful argument.  Heck, I'd
be happy if I paid as little to register my car as I do to register my
IP space each year.  I get quite a bit more use out of my IP space then out
of having a unique identifier on my car.

>> Hmmm... Then perhaps I should solicit the other people I know who don't
>> like the recent actions of our government and we should route around the
>> damage of the united States Congress?  Yes, I'd say it has other rather
>> obvious disadvantages.
>
> Congress has final legal jurisdiction; the only way to route around them
> is via the Supreme Court.  The RIRs are more similar to states, which are
> bypassed all the time by federal preemption (IETF/IANA do this less
> often, but it happens).
>
No... This is not true.  There are a number of ways to route around
congress, some legal, some not.
	+	civil disobedience (questionable legality)
	+	Article 5:
			The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses
			shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments
			to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
			the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
			States, shall call a Convention for proposing	
			Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid
			to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
			Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
			three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions
			in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other
			Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
			Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior
			to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
			shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
			Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
			and that no State, without its Consent, shall be
			deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
	+	Armed Insurrection (definitely illegal)
	+	Terrorist Act (also illegal)
	+	Use of pre-existing State Law for pre-emption
	+	Renouncement of Citizenship (in some cases)
	+	Recall Petitions
	+	Franked Mail Protests

> The disadvantages I see here are (a) people think ULAs, of either
> variety, will end up being routed, and (b) the RIRs don't want to miss
> out on rental income.  Both presume that ULAs will be used for the same
> purposes that PI space would be used for and that the two are direct
> substitutes; I assert that neither is true.
>
If you think (a) is not true, then, you really need to put down the
crack pipe and look at the fact that most of the world operates on the
basis of a capitalist economy, consider the economic factors at work, and,
then, consider what ISP is going to refuse to route them when one of those
big companies your so fond of dangles dollars in exchange for doing so.

(b) is not the case.  The RIRs recognize that running a registry costs
money.  There are operational costs with any entity, and, a global IP
registry (or even a regional or local one) is no exception.  They also
know from experience that there are lots of ways to run a registry badly.
That running a registry carries with it a stewardship role and certain
other obligations and that all of these cost money to implement and/or
scale.  They recognize that it's easy to run a registry for a little while
without it costing very much, but, that as issues arise and scaling becomes
more important, costs go up and solutions that were easy when it's small
end up requiring significantly more labor to scale.

As a result, the RIRs don't believe that the free ULA business model is
sustainable, but, it will undercut their ability to maintain what, so far,
is a proven and sustainable model for doing such registrations.

>> > At the personal request of an AC member, I will be requesting
>> > suggestions
>> > on PPML for IPv6 PI space requirements and then submitting a policy
>> > proposal. We will see what happens after that.
> ...
>> FWIW, I will strongly support any proposal to make it easier for
>> organizations to get rational IPv6 allocations of PI space.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> I still think there's sufficient demand for locally-generated ULAs even
> if changes in PI policy make centrally-assigned ULAs mostly moot.
>
And I still wonder why.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041119/f366f313/attachment.sig>