- 4086 days inactive
- 4086 days old
- 1 participants
- 0 comments
j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
How about routing table size? ISP's would have no way to aggregate.
I think that APNIC's fees and justification procedures will be the economic modifier needed to prevent an explosion of extra allocations and routes; again, why would I pay a minimum of over AU$4k up front and AU$675 annually for an IPv6 range I would get bundled with my ISP service, unless I really needed to?
So if you believe that (a) the vast majority of end sites will find an allocation from their ISP adequate (and be far cheaper than paying APNIC) and (b) a large proportion of the companies that needed portable addresses would be likely to be multihomed already and so would be eligible for portable assignments anyway, then I think the additional routes beyond this added by removing the multihomed requirement would be relatively small (for some definition of "relatively", of course).
This is naturally very difficult to quantify; it requires an estimate of the regional or global number of companies who might have the need, justification, and willingness to pay for portable IPv6 addressing but which are not multihomed; I would be interested if anyone has any estimates for such numbers.
I also would welcome any views from the APNIC Secretariat as to whether they believe the removal of the multihoming requirement would substantially affect their workload.
At 02:38 PM 19/01/2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:
David: How about routing table size? ISP's would have no way to aggregate.
yi ________________________________________ From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org] on behalf of David Woodgate [email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 6:41 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6 portable assignments?
I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether the current multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments is truly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6 allocation policy.
That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyone upon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without the requirement to be multihomed?
At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homed network is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of course should be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks small enough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for large to very large statically-configured networks if they wish to change ISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that the customer will need to renumber their entire network to a new address space assigned by the new ISP.
This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addresses readily available to any company, and the only apparent policy change required would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e. changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation and assignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and other assignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companies other than those who really needed this for genuine business purposes anyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if they don't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk an explosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of IPv6 resources.
There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retaining the multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that many networks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seem necessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed as an unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinder or add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.
I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members of this list, and I would be interested in working with someone to co-author a policy proposal.
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list email@example.com http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.