RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN

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

Regarding Address Reclaim.  My private individual input to RIR is that
the private sector should have binding legal agreement with any LIR that
they cannot force a renumber without proper X time to renumber which
would be different depending on the business impact real time of a
renumbering operation.  Not clear how Governments will operate as they
are truly ISPs and the issue could be moot to them.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Craig Huegen (chuegen)
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 9:21 AM
> To: Durand, Alain; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; ppml@arin.net; shim6@psg.com
> Subject: RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN
> 
> On Friday, April 14, 2006 6:54 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I'd like to clarify this a bit.  As a large enterprise 
> network operator, I'm less concerned about the need to 
> renumber the network once than I am the need to renumber 
> every time that I want to change a service provider.  Don't 
> take that the wrong way:  renumbering is still a significant 
> pain, but the real reason that enterprises haven't adopted PA 
> space is that it represents a de-facto "lock-in" to the 
> service providers they choose initially and they're faced 
> with a network-wide renumber any time they drop or add a 
> service provider.
> 
> Most enterprise network operators that I have spoken to would 
> be willing to renumber once in the future, in exchange for a 
> reasonable way to get portable IPv6 space today.
> 
> > B) any address reclaim process might be lenghty and costly
> 
> Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but the policy can set a 
> recovery timeframe in its allocation of PI space to end users 
> and the market forces can drive the recovery based on the 
> impact to the infrastructure.
> If only a few hundred prefixes are handed out, it might not 
> be enough of a problem to force recovery.
> 
> This may be a moot point for the ARIN discussion, though, as 
> ARIN typically doesn't play all that much of an enforcer 
> role.  It can declare prefixes and prefix ranges as dead, but 
> reachability is determined by the service providers.
> 
> > 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...
> 
> I think that Jordi was referring to 3 years after the 
> solution is declared "available" -- admittedly that's a tough 
> milestone to set.
> 
> Finally, I agree with all four other points you make; 
> adoption of IPv6 has been held up because the capabilities 
> offered lack a critical requirement for enterprise networks 
> (connectivity without de-facto service provider lock-in).  
> The agreement to move forward with a policy is a very 
> positive thing that enables IPv6 to work for large 
> enterprises while the right solution is determined and rolled out.
> 
> /cah
> 
> ---
> Craig A. Huegen, IT Solutions Architect       C i s c o  S y s t e m s
> IT - Intelligent Network Solutions                  ||        ||
> Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
> San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
> email: chuegen@cisco.com       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
> 
>