On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
A very important distinction. The _immediate_ hit to the DFZ might be the same as obtaining PI V6 space, but the _long term_ hit to the DFZ might be much greater;
The real issue is that there are many /48 announcements today which should be either: 1) not in the DFZ at all, but are because of a) accidental pollution/leaks b) intentional de-aggregation, which is very often inappropriate 2) should instead be PI allocations to organizations, not delegated PA space This will only get worse unless we task the RIRs with doing the only real job they have left in a post-v6-transition world: working to enable connectivity without unnecessary DFZ bloat. There is no longer a need for RIRs to say "no" to allocation requests on the basis that we will run out of (IPv6) addresses. The sole reason for technical barriers in the application/request process at all is to keep the DFZ in-check. Yet, our community still refuses to explicitly alter RIR policy such that controlling DFZ growth is an explicit component of the RIRs' mission. We can very easily choose to have one of two scenarios: 1) The bad situation with IPv4, where half the DFZ is accidental leaks or poorly-designed networks that are essentially on auto-pilot; yet small businesses and ISPs are not able to acquire PI space for use in BGP and must use PA blocks from their transit providers 2) An opposite situation, where the DFZ does not contain any de-aggregates, but contains many PI routes from organizations who have their PI space announced by their ISP for the purpose of avoiding re-numbering, not for multi-homing using their own BGP routers/ASN/etc. Getting to either one of these two extremes is very easy. Right now, we are heading for #1. If all technical barriers for acquiring IPv6 PI were removed, we would probably have #2. How do we find a medium between them, where there aren't ASNs originating 1000+ unnecessary de-aggregates out of their own carelessness and ineptitude, but also, there isn't a /32 (or /48) announced for every mom & pop ISP who themselves do not participate in BGP, or every corporate branch office who do not want to renumber when they change ISPs? This is how RIRs are failing us. Except that the RIRs really can't fail us, because they do what the members direct them to do through policy. If we don't task them to help the community do a better job at managing the IPv6 DFZ now, we may never be able to go back and fix it. The genie is out of the bottle with IPv4; but realistically, IPv6 is young enough that we have plenty of wiggle-room in terms of allocation policy, typical inter-domain route filters, and so on. -- Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@inconcepts.biz> Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts