[6bone] Address management transfer proposal

['Anand Kumria']

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:06:08PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Anand Kumria wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Apparently comments about the proposed transfer are due in today, I've
> > read most of the archive (most of the discussion took place 
> > in August) and 
> > here is my (completely biased) summary:
> > 
> > Transfer to RIRs:
> > 
> > Pros:
> > 	- no single point of allocation	
> > 	- delegation of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa
> > 
> > Cons:
> > 	- turns 3ffe::/16 into a service which requires payment
> 
> Who/what says/defines that suddenly one has to 'pay' for 6bone space?

It was part of the proposal, see 
<URL: http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-ipv6/archive/2002/08/msg00000.html>

3.1 parts (c) and (d); note I didn't say "suddenly" but it will turn
6bone into a service which requires payment.

Specifically from the APNIC 2001 annual report; they make USD$3620K 
revenue. At least USD$581K at directly attributable to IPv4 address
space delegation.

The USD$2472K earned from membership will be serverely reduced with 
widespread deployment of IPv6, since membership fees are based upon
amount of address space held.

Make no mistake that IPv6 represents a revenue threat to all RIRs. 

> > Keeping existing system:
> > 
> > Pros:
> > 	- no changes
> > 
> > Cons:
> > 	- may induce volunteer burnout
> > 	- no e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa delegation
> > 	- doesn't excourage migration to production IPv6 addresses
> 
> This would eNcourage migration to production IPv6 as the 6bone
> would be 'harmed' by the nonexistent ip6.arpa delegation.

Perhaps, my current feeling is that there are more end-users using 6bone
address space than IPv6 production space. I have no data to back up that
feeling though.

Those end-users of 6bone will eventually start to demand RIR IPv6
addresses.

> Also many people are moving on to RIR space, at least I think
> that is what you mean that with 'production' IPv6.

Yes, I do; I'll use that term instead (IPv6 RIR space) instead.

> > Some points I noted, my comments are under them:
> > 
> > + RIRs have no incentive to pull-in IPv4 and hand-out IPv6; I 
> > think this will guarentee even slower IPv6 rollout
> 
> I think you are quite wrong here; See
> http://www.ripe.net/ipv6/v6allocs.html

404'd

> or http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/

A very useful tool!

> IPv6 TLA's per country
> Total number of countries: 49
> 
> The following prefixlengths are delegated by the RIR's:
>  58x /24
>  56x /28 
> 240x /32 
>  55x /35
> 
> ripe:  140
> 6bone: 134
> apnic:  93
> arin:   42
> 
> Hmm 134 6bone TLA's and only 140+93+42 = 275 RIR TLA's... not enough? :)

Interesting; and yet end-user IPv6 is still hard to find the world over.

> Only the ARIN region is quite behind, but the others are growing
> rapidly.

Actually I'd say that APNIC is also.

> > It'd be nice if RIRs started to penalise their large transit/backbone
> > operator for requesting IPv4 space but not have/using IPv6 space. It'd
> > also be nice if pigs had wings too.
> 
> ISP's/Transit providers are BUSINESSES. They have to earn money.

Yes, so you'd imagine that: lower fees for RIR IPv6 coupled with
additional costs for RIR IPv4 would encourage migration.

Most people on this list are technical and neglect to take into account
that beancounters have a lot of sway also; demonstrate that IPv6 is less
costly and perhaps more organisations will commence take up.

Most beancounters that I've met are very happy if they can lower their
OPEX [1] (operational expenditure) by a small amount of CAPEX [1] (captial
expenditure).


> > + having the delegation, as far as I can tell, depend on migrating
> > address management to the RIRs will only slow down IPv6 adoption.
> > 
> > I help out on various irc channels people setup their tunnels; the
> > hardest thing for most of them is to get reverse DNS gonig. When they
> > discover that they have to do it twice (for ip6.int and ip6.arpa) most
> > of them don't bother -- even if the work isn't much.
> 
> Give those people clue first and probably the only reason why they
> want reverse is to 'look cool on irc'. 

Perhaps; personally I've not encountered that. But then I lead a
sheltered irc existence.

> That's not a reason to do IPv6.

What is? What you mean is that you don't think it is a valid reason to
deploy IPv6; I'm sure a clever ISP could start to make money form it
though. Vanity can earn $$$ dollars.

> > Having the RIRs not delegate e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa means that 
> > support will be
> > in place in a lot of OS for ip6.int for many years to come.
> 
> 6bone is a testbed it ain't that critical.

True; however at the moment all software has to support both ip6.int and
ip6.arpa; if hostmaster@ep.net decided to they could render a whole
potion of future RIRs income stream irrelevant by delegating
1.0.0.2.ip6.int to the appropriate organisations.

One would imagine that the RIRs would want to safeguard that but
evidently they don't. *shrug*

> 
> > + ARIN (at least) have waived fees for IPv6 space until today
> >
> > it may be worthwhile seeing which way they (all RIRs) jump on 
> > pricing (too high and it'll discourage ISPs from taking that service).
> 
> 6bone isn't just "free IP space for all"
> Every RIR can have their own policies for delegating address space.

Hence I believe it'll be useful to see what action the RIRs take.

> > + 6bone may not fall under the IETF IPv6 AD responsiblity; hence the
> > desire to more it "somewhere approriate".
> 
> Could you translate that?

Apparently, from the archive I read, the genesis of this transfer was
because the IETF IPv6 Area Director (Randy Bush?) was/is in the process
of winding up the ipngwg; the 6bone project did not fit into the terms
of reference of the next one. Thus the desire to find a another home.

[[ Apologies if I've got this all wrong, clarifications welcome ]]

> > + IPv6 is readily available, many people said "but I have native IPv6
> > already".
> > 
> > Unfortunately even within APNIC's region getting IPv6 service is hard;
> > my ISP has as it's upstream AS701 and AS1221. Only AS1221 has IPv6
> > production addresses (even that for only a year). Despite monthly
> > emails and phone calls, the sales staff (both my ISP and AS1221's)
> don't 
> > know what IPv6 is.
> 
> Get another uplink if you are not content with them.
> 
> > I'm not even sure if AS701 has IPv6 production addresses. 
> > Even worse is
> > that the other major backbone with Australia (AS7474) hasn't even got
> > any (6bone or production) IPv6 addresses.
> 
> Convince them that they should; they will probably have one big and
> fairly good argument: Pay us.

Actually the AS7474 people said they hadn't seen much demand; so I've
setup a tunnel broker and lo' 50% of the people taking up the service
are within AS747.

>From what I understand from my second hand hearing of things; they are
now looking at their suppliers to see which support IPv6. Unfortunately
it is a large organisation so those kinds of (re)evaluations can take
time.

> > I feel that transferring the address allocation to RIRs (merely for
> > the DNS delegation) will lead to the hastened end of the 6bone. We all
> > realise the 6bone will, and must, go but I think it is too 
> > early at the moment.
> 
> I read this as "because I don't have ip6.arpa my irc doesn't work".

Read it as "because ip6.arpa isn't delegated growth of IPv6 demand (from
end users) is slowed".

> The rest of your message has nothing to do with ip6.arpa

Precisely because I'm giving my feedback on the proposed address
transfer. You appear to have been sidetracked by one of the smaller
issues I mentioned.

Regards,
Anand

[1]: Widely used terms within Australia, not sure about the rest of the
world.

-- 
 `` We are shaped by our thoughts, we become what we think.
 When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never
 leaves. '' -- Buddha, The Dhammapada