RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

Jordi, thanks.  I completely disagree with you.  So we can debate as apppropriate, but at the end of the day any RIR only accepts input from "individuals" not organizations. 

Thanks for your response.

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On 
> Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 6:20 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; ppml@arin.net; shim6@psg.com
> Subject: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Not sure if I got your question correctly, but let me try to 
> explain my view.
> 
> I understand the position of the people that say they need PI 
> today, especially because not having it may be hurting the 
> advancement of the IPv6 deployment.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > De: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
> > Responder a: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Fecha: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:11:58 -0400
> > Para: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> > Conversación: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> > Asunto: RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> > 
> > Jordi, why this will work as is for now?
> > /jim
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 5:28 PM
> >> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> >> 
> >> Hi Thomas, all,
> >> 
> >> During my fly-back from Montreal, I've worked in a 
> proposal and I'm 
> >> talking to folks in each RIR/region, with the idea to submit it to 
> >> all them as a kind of (if possible), global policy.
> >> 
> >> The idea is based on the comments that I did at the mic during the 
> >> ARIN meeting.
> >> 
> >> I will try to get this submitted next Monday/Tuesday and get ready 
> >> for a formal presentation during the next RIPE meeting at Istanbul 
> >> (following week).
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Jordi
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> De: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Responder a: 
> >>> <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> >>> Fecha: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:14:54 -0400
> >>> Para: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
> >>> CC: "v6ops@ops.ietf.org" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
> >>> Asunto: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> >>> 
> >>>> What would be the prefix allocation per organization?
> >>> 
> >>> /48, though can be larger in some cases. Watch for the revised 
> >>> proposal that gets last called for details.
> >>> 
> >>>> (Me being in Europe and not attending ARIN sessions)
> >>> 
> >>> Note: none of the other RIRs have such a policy in place
> >> today, though
> >>> I wouldn't be surprised if they now followup with proposals
> >> of their
> >>> own (though someone has to do it).
> >>> 
> >>>> Has there been study on the # of organizations going for
> >> this and if
> >>>> the impact will be more significant then more's law on 
> technology 
> >>>> enhancement?
> >>> 
> >>> Mostly just hand waving, with a lot of "IPv4 hasn't melted today,"
> >>> "looking at the impact of the current IPv4 policies, the
> >> number of PI
> >>> assignments is only on the 100s per year", and "we can update the 
> >>> policy if things get problematical".
> >>> 
> >>> Thomas
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> **********************************************
> >> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>