[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

[Stephen Sprunk]

> Policy Proposal Name: PI assignments for V6
>
> Author: Owen DeLong
>
> Policy term: permanent

Should this policy automatically expire once a certain number of prefixes
are assigned, after a certain period of time, when 32-bit ASNs are deployed,
etc. or can we reasonably expect operators to force repealing the policy if
a "land rush" develops?

> Policy statement:
>
> Any end-site or other organization which meets the current tests for
> assignment of an autonomous system number (ASN) shall also qualify for one
> IPv6 prefix assignment or allocation of the minimum size justified by them
> under the ARIN guidelines for LIR assignment to such an organization.

I had to read this several times to understand you weren't expecting end
sites to become LIRs; please consider separating end sites and small ISPs
into different paragraphs.

> If the organization grows to require more space, they will not be entitled
> to an additional block, but, may obtain a new replacement block of
> sufficient size to meet their needs

I don't like the wording here, but I can't seem to come up with something
better...

> in exchange for agreement that their existing block will be reclaimed and
> may be reissued to a different organization in 24 months.

24 months seems excessive for end-site renumbering since they won't have to
coordinate with sub-assignees.  Perhaps different limits for allocations and
assignments?

Other comments:

Should prefixes be required to be taken from block(s) designated for this
use, since that will help ISPs adjust their filters?  This seems common with
other recent proposals.

Should multiple organizations using the same ASN be considered a single
end-site and thus required to share a prefix?

Should having PI space disqualify an end-site from PA assignments, or vice
versa?  What about PI space allocated under other policies?

Should we include any way for disconnected sites (which many not have an
ASN) to get PI space?  The IPv4 policy directs such sites to use RFC 1918
space, but there is no equivalent (yet) in IPv6.

> All such assignments under this policy shall be subject to the same
> renewal criteria as v4 end-user assignments with a fee structure to be set
> by ARIN in the usual and customary way.

In another forum it was claimed that ARIN charged ISPs $100/yr for IPv6 PI
allocations; looking at the fee schedule, it appears that starting 1 Jan 05,
the fees will be $2,500 plus $2,250/yr for a /32.  Anyone requesting a
second allocation pays $20k plus $18k/yr.  That's quite a difference from
$100/yr.

ARIN's "usual and customary way" has already set the fees for end-user
direct assignments to be the same as for ISP allocations, per section 12(D)
of the 3 Aug 04 BoT meeting.

At these fee levels, I must question the viability of direct PI assignments
as a replacement for many or even most potential ULA uses, which I
understand to be a central motivation for this policy proposal.  Of course,
this policy is still warranted for "normal" uses of PI space in IPv6.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041204/1a192bae/attachment.bin>