RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN

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

I am not sure this is valid discussion for v6ops with respect to a
deliverable from v6ops because IETF has no more input to the RIRs than
GM, BT, Governments etc.  

V6ops Chairs: Is this valid discussion to any of our working group
deliverables other than good fyi to the team?  Thanks

/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Durand, Alain
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 7:54 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; ppml@arin.net; shim6@psg.com
> Subject: Re: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> 
> Wrt Jordi's proposal:
> 
> I have sympathy to the idea of balancing PI need with routing 
> table growth, however:
> 
> A) if PI addresses are to be returned at some point in time, 
> they loose a dreat deal of their value. Folks like PI because 
> it shields them from renumbering.
> 
> B) any address reclaim process might be lenghty and costly
> 
> C) given how long the shim6/multi homing has taken so far, it 
> seems hazardous to make any bet that in 3 years it will be 
> finish, implemented, adopted, deployed...
> 
> D) I am sensitive to the argument that v4 has not "melted" 
> with PI, so why should v6 melt more? I believe the benefits 
> of handing out PI *now* outweight the cost of a *small* swamp. 
> 
> E) given the state of v6 deployment now, I do not think there 
> is much risk with this policy at this moment. And as Thomas 
> relayed, this policy could be changed anyway if things get 
> out of control.
> 
> F) if this means giving advantage to the early adopters by 
> offering them PI, I look at this as a positive thing.
> 
> G) a key thing is to limit the size of the swamp that would 
> be created, or more specifically limit its growth. So it 
> might be a good idea to have a sunset clause in the policy, 
> like it will have to be revisited in 2 years or when a 
> certain allocation (or allocation rate) threshold will be reached.
> 
>     - Alain.
>