ULA and RIR cost-recovery

Tue Nov 30 06:00:35 UTC 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>> # 1 Set aside a block for "local" use a-la RFC1918.  This set aside
>>>   should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided
>>>   for used for these local purposes.
>> 
>> FWIW, site-locals were dropped (among others) due to concerns about
>> sufficient guarantee of uniqueness.  ULA started by having only a local
>> generation mechanism, no central allocation at all.  Would that allay
>> your concerns?
>
> No.  In that case, it makes things even worse because it creates the 
> promise and illusion of uniqueness without actually delivering 
> uniqueness. Worst of both worlds... Bigger address-waste (not that 
> it really matters), non-uniqueness, and the expectation of 
> uniqueness.  To some small extent, this might (_MIGHT_) reduce the 
> pressure on ISPs to route these prefixes, but, that is the only 
> improvement over a central registry.

OK, I understand with this sentiment.  It's easier for the ISPs to 
fend off ("there's no uniqueness, we can't route this stuff!").

>>> # 3 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that there should be no PI space.
>>>   There will be PI space, either by people using ULA for that purposes,
>>>   or by the RIR's changing this stupidity after they get ahold of it.
>> 
>> I think we all know there's going to be _some_ form of PI space. Whether
>> that's realized by making the policies weaker, by end-sites lying in
>> their address applications, or end-sites providing interesting
>> interpretation for "other organizations", or a number of different
>> mechanisms, the fact is that some form of PI addressing is going to be
>> there.  The question just is, what kind, how much of it, and to whom it's
>> available.
>
> Ideally, I'd like to see us address this up front in a clear and 
> open manner instead of using nudge-nudge and wink-wink encouragement 
> to make creative applications for space.  The former can be done 
> fairly.  The latter insures that the only organizations that have 
> any sort of advantage are the ones willing to lie to get it.  This 
> tends to happen by accident often enough. Creating the situation 
> deliberately is, IMHO, absurd.

Sure, I invite discussion on this in the open.  The best place would 
probably be the global-v6 list at:

http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/global-v6/

>>> # 5 Stay out of the allocation details.  The RIR's have been allocating
>>>   addresses for years.  The RIR's have people, from small to large
>>>   ISP's and everything inbetween solving real world allocation
>>>   problems every day.  The history tells us is the policy will
>>>   change over time.  History also tells us being too liberal early on
>>>   can never be "fixed".  The RIR's will change policy as time goes
>>>   on to fit the changing IPv6 world.  Let them deal with the policy
>>>   on a going forward basis.
>> 
>> The history also tells us that being too stingy when there is no need to
>> be stingy will result in useless fragmentation of the addressing, and
>> therefore results in the fragmentation of routing advertisements.
>> 
> Actually, that fragmentation was primarily the result of being insufficiently
> stingy early on.

There are many kinds of fragmentation.  When you only get (e.g.,) a 
v4 /24 for a start, and when you need more, you'll have to get a new 
non-adjacent /24, there's going to be fragmentation.

For v6, you can just look at below to see what is the result of 
unnecessary stinginess causing fragmentation of allocations (though 
luckily not advertisements):

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-tla-assignments

We _don't_ want to get to a point where each IPv6 ISP or end-site will 
have to have dozens of IPv6 prefixes, just because they outgrew the 
previous ones.  There are enough bits to play around.

It's not as we are carving out v4 /8's (1/256 of space) for early 
adopters. Or even /16's.  More like the equivalent space of a host 
address.  That's hardly too much.  In fact, it's way too little for 
those ISPs which have home customers like DSL, and it's going to be a 
a pain because they either must get a new prefix or give their 
customers a /64 instead of /48.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings