Re: Fwd: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

[Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@internap.com>]

As one of the participants in the ARIN public policy process that led up
to this consensus, I can say I saw this coming a while ago.

Firstly, let me say that the policy we supported is not just "PI /48 for
end-sites".  It's PI /48 for end sites who qualify for an IPv4 PI /22.

Since getting involved in the IETF (partly as a result of hearing about
shim6 at NANOG/ARIN in L.A.), I've never seen shim6 (nor PI) as the
one-and-only multihoming solution for IPv6.  Instead, I see PI as
addressing the needs of large sites who prefer to multihome with BGP (with
all its TE capabilities and do-everything-in-the-network design), and
shim6 addressing the needs of host multihoming, smaller site multihoming
for folks who don't want to (or can't) run BGP, or for multihomed sites
who desire greater control on the host of the path chosen (for performance
reasons, which can be measured end-to-end).

This is why I've stressed making sure that shim6 is relatively
non-impactful to the sites who don't need it for their own multihoming, so
that they will still let their OS enable it by default, and just discard
shim6 context after it's created, letting the multihomed side keep track
of things and only keep context in failure cases.

-Scott

On 04/13/06 at 5:38pm -0400, Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org> wrote:

> Apologies for the circuitous, tangled path of forwarding below. I
> wasn't in the meeting, so I can't comment on the support that Thomas
> describes.
>
> If end-site PI assignments for anybody who wants to multi-home come
> to pass at ARIN, and if the other RIRs follow suit, then there would
> seem to be a limited opportunity for future deployment of shim6 (or,
> at least, substantially reduced demand for it).
>
> There are still the basement multi-homers who prefer not to become
> RIR members, of course :-)
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: james@towardex.com
> > Date: 13 April 2006 16:38:06 EDT (CA)
> > To: ipv6-ops@lists.cluenet.de
> > Subject: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
> >
> > I'm sure many of you have already seen this... but finally the
> > community
> > has spoken: PI /48 for end-sites :)
> >
> > Looks like we're almost there... many thanks to everyone, Kevin and
> > Owen who
> > voiced this issue at ARIN meetings!
> >
> > james
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> -----
> >
> > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> > Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 15:54:52 -0400
> > From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
> >
> > FYI, at this week's ARIN meeting, there was agreement to move forward
> > with a (slightly modified) version of
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html, "Policy Proposal
> > 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites".
> >
> > Process wise, I believe there will be an updated proposal and formal
> > last call. But there was clear support in the meeting to move forward
> > on this policy.
> >
> > This is a significant step, as no PI addresses had previously been
> > available for end sites in IPv6.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > James Jun
> > TowardEX Technologies, Inc.
> >
> > Email: james@towardex.com
> > Office: +1 617-459-4051 Ext. 179
> > Mobile: +1 978-394-2867
> > Fax: +1 432-225-3784
> >
>
>
>