RE: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN

On Friday, April 14, 2006 9:02 AM, Durand, Alain
<mailto:Alain_Durand-aUJzA63xOnoL9wKPcNvCOAC/[email protected]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig Huegen (chuegen) [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> B) any address reclaim process might be lenghty and costly
>> 
>> Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but the policy can set a
>> recovery timeframe in its allocation of PI space to end users
>> and the market forces can drive the recovery based on the impact to
>> the infrastructure. If only a few hundred prefixes are handed out,
>> it might not be enough of a problem to force recovery.
> 
> One could argue that if we are only talking about a few hundred
> prefixes, Why do we care reclaiming them?

I agree with that argument, _if_ there are only a few hundred.  I'm also
leaving room for a case here that results in tens of thousands of these
prefixes being routed (for instance, if the community can't reach any
consensus on architectures for many years).

I believe that the RIR's who assign PI space should do so with explicit
agreement that there may need to be a reclamation in the future, when a
new architecture exists.  RIR's do not have the ability to enforce that
today except through some specific policy hurdles and perhaps some fee
structuring.  The primary enforcer will likely need to be service
providers, depending upon the pain they feel from having to carry these
prefixes.

/cah

---
Craig A. Huegen, IT Solutions Architect       C i s c o  S y s t e m s
IT - Intelligent Network Solutions                  ||        ||
Cisco Systems, Inc., 400 East Tasman Drive          ||        ||
San Jose, CA  95134, (408) 526-8104                ||||      ||||
email: [email protected]       CCIE #2100      ..:||||||:..:||||||:..