[125262] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Sun Apr 11 14:21:41 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <0D478936-091E-4807-B1B3-025C86154387@delong.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 08:21:17 -1000
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Owen,
On Apr 11, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Instead, we have a situation where the mere mention
> of requiring legacy holders to pay a token annual fee like the rest
> of IP end-users in the ARIN region leads to discussions like this.
I don't believe the issue is the token annual fee. My guess is that most =
legacy holders would be willing to pay a "reasonable" service fee to =
cover rDNS and registration database maintenance (they'd probably be =
more willing if there were multiple providers of that service, but =
that's a separate topic). I suspect the issue might be more related to =
stuff like:
> Especially in light of
> the fact that if you are sitting on excess resources and want
> to be able to transfer them under NRPM 8.3, you will need
> to bring them under LRSA or RSA first and the successor who
> acquires them from you (under 8.2 or 8.3) will need to sign an
> RSA for the transfer to be valid.
You appear to be assuming folks are willing to accept ARIN has the right =
and ability to assert the above (and more). That is, that the entire =
policy regime under which the NRPM has been defined is one that legacy =
holders are implicitly bound simply because they happen to operate in =
ARIN's service region and received IP addresses in the past without any =
real terms and conditions or formal agreement. I imagine the validity =
of your assumption will not be established without a definitive legal =
ruling. I'm sure it will be an interesting court case.
In any event, it seems clear that some feel that entering into =
agreements and paying fees in order to obtain IPv6 address space is =
hindering deployment of IPv6. While ARIN has in the past waived fees =
for IPv6, I don't believe there has ever been (nor is there likely to =
be) a waiver of signing the RSA. Folks who want that should probably get =
over it.
To try to bring this back to topics relevant to NANOG (and not ARIN's =
PPML), the real issue is that pragmatically speaking, the only obvious =
alternative to IPv6 is multi-layer NAT and it seems some people are =
trying to tell you that regardless of how much you might hate =
multi-layer NAT, how much more expensive you believe it will be =
operationally, and how much more limiting and fragile it will be because =
it breaks the end-to-end paradigm, they believe it to be a workable =
solution. Are there _any_ case studies, analyses with actual data, etc. =
that shows multi-layer NAT is not workable (scalable, operationally =
tractable, etc.) or at least is more expensive than IPv6?=20
Regards,
-drc
