Subject: [ipv6-dir] Fwd: [isoc-board] IP adressing Model for competition

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:59:58 -0400

Here is an interesting paper on IPv6 address allocation coming out of 
the WGIG process.

Please excuse the PDF -- it is the only form that I have available. 
If you aren't able to read a PDF file, please ignore.

Margaret
_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 10:17:54 +0200

On 7 jul 2005, at 16.59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>
> Here is an interesting paper on IPv6 address allocation coming out  
> of the WGIG process.
>

Some first read remarks below

o I would like to argue that the assertion that IP allocations are  
not hierarchical is false. Allocations are done done in vacuum.  They  
use up slots in the routing table and they are potentially  
aggregateable. In other words there is a hierarchy that might not be  
immediately visible.

o The end-user cost of migrating form address blocks are indeed a  
valid concern, but to the best of my knowledge the law-suit  
referenced actually was about assistance of migration rather than the  
actual migration. But I would have to go back and read the court  
documents and Nanog thread to remember the details.

o The assertion that there is no economic benefit for returning  
address allocations are not exactly true as LIR fees are calculated  
based on size of allocated objects (at least in RIPE - and from  
memory that is true about other RIRs too).

o The assertion of cost implications of route aggregation seems to be  
misleading at best. We do know of a number of other ways to do (or  
actually not do) route aggregation. I (think/guess) that the economic  
factors have upper bounds in terms of Moores law and the scaling of  
the  BGP convergence time.

o The paper seems to lack "somewhat" in understanding of the RIRs  
membership models. Most importantly it makes the assumption that the  
RIRs make the policy. Here it's worth to make two observations. 1)  
It's actually the RIR communities that makes the policy. I.e the ISPs  
and the end-users (remember that you do not have to be a member of  
any RIR to "vote" on policy) that are said to be hurt by current  
policies are actually making that policy. 2) In the case of the IPv6  
policy, it has long been seen a goal to have a single global policy  
which is try to address global needs. This benefits of this has  
started to be in question lately and might change though.

o In the assertions of improved route aggregation, the paper fails to  
acknowledge that deaggregation today is one of only two effective  
traffic engineering methods for inter-provider traffic. It's also  
worth nothing that IPv4 will by history always be much more  
fragmented than IPv6, which is one of the reason to keep the IPv6  
address space aggregated.

In general the paper seems to have tried to target something useful -  
a summary of the debate so far. Unfortunately it sides with the  
authors own proposal to a large extent. It also fails to address the  
main point of the debate/reasons for concern : The fact that  
competition is expect to be around varying policies means that it's  
not necessarily the number of allocating agencies that are the  
concern, it's the policy of each of them. Especially as the only way  
to be "competitive" would be to have a more relaxed strategy than  
today. The paper also leaves out what the advantage of competition  
would be.

- kurtis -

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:20:26 -0400

Hi Kurtis,

ISOC is considering a response to this paper, intended to correct the 
errors and educate folks on the current address allocation structure 
(which we can't assume that WSIS/WGIG folks already understand).  Our 
concern is that, without a well-thought-out rebuttal, the statements 
in this paper will stand as facts in the WSIS/WGIG process.

Would it be okay for me to forward your comments to the folks who are 
working on the response?  Fair warning:  that might result in them 
coming back to you for more info.

Margaret

At 10:17 AM +0200 7/8/05, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>>  Please excuse the PDF -- it is the only form that I have 
>>available. If you aren't able to read a PDF file, please ignore.
>
>not hierarchical is false. Allocations are done done in vacuum. 
>They use up slots in the routing table and they are potentially 
>referenced actually was about assistance of migration rather than 
>the actual migration. But I would have to go back and read the court 
>o The assertion of cost implications of route aggregation seems to 
>be misleading at best. We do know of a number of other ways to do 
>(or actually not do) route aggregation. I (think/guess) that the 
>economic factors have upper bounds in terms of Moores law and the 
>scaling of the  BGP convergence time.
>
>It's actually the RIR communities that makes the policy. I.e the 
>ISPs and the end-users (remember that you do not have to be a member 
>of any RIR to "vote" on policy) that are said to be hurt by current 
>o In the assertions of improved route aggregation, the paper fails 
>to acknowledge that deaggregation today is one of only two effective 
>In general the paper seems to have tried to target something useful 
>- a summary of the debate so far. Unfortunately it sides with the

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:09:56 +0200

I had the opportunity to chat with Milton this week and chat with
others that are familiar with his work.

It's not at all clear to me that this work has any constituancy or
traction. It is also clear that a number of the more technically-savvy
folk think the work is shallow. Indeed, I'd characterize it as "free
markets and competion are Good, therefor competition in the registry
is by definition Good too". But, there is no indication just what the
competition is supposed to achieve/optimize.

He has no specific alternate policy in mind (e.g., one different than
the current ones in place in the RIRs), and doesn't really understand
the route scaling problem. So this is largely an academic exercise,
being done "because we can".

It also appears that the ICANN ASO may create a WG to produce a
response of some sort to this paper.

Personally, I'm not sure what sort of response is appropriate. It may
actually be better to mostly ignore the work than call attention to it
by producing a response to it. I.e., at the ICANN meeting this week,
he gave a presentation and the folk present jumped all over him. Geoff
and I encourged him to come up with an actual strawman policy he'd
like to see adopted and to bring it to an RIR. :-)

Thomas