[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
ARIN received the following proposed policy. In accordance with the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List and being placed on ARIN's
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal and within ten
working days may decide to:
1) Support the proposal as is,
2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine one or more
policy proposals, or
3) Not support the policy proposal.
If the AC supports the proposal or reaches an agreement to work with the
author, then the proposal will be posted as a formal policy proposal to
the Public Policy Mailing List and it will be presented at the Public
Policy Meeting. If the AC does not support the proposal, then the author
may elect to use the petition process to advance the proposal. If the
author elects not to petition or the petition fails, then the proposed
policy will be considered closed.
The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
### * ###
Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
Author: Kevin Loch
Changes to NRPM section 6:
add new section 6.5.8:
6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites.
220.127.116.11. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
a) not be an LIR;
b) be an end site;
c) be currently multi-homed using IPv6 to two or more
separate LIR's. native connections or statically
configured tunnels may be used to satisfy this
d) The prefix(es) used by the end site to demonstrate
multihoming must be visible in the ARIN whois
databse or via rwhois as being assigned to the
18.104.22.168. Direct assignment size to end sites
Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment
criteria are eligible to receive a direct assignment of
22.214.171.124. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites
Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site
End sites that require more than 65536 subnets should
request space from an LIR or consider becoming
126.96.36.199. Migration from end site to LIR
A direct end site assignment shall not
disqualify an organization from becoming an LIR and
ceasing to be an end site if it otherwise meets the
requirements for an initial allocation.
Organizations receiving an LIR allocation must
renumber into that allocation and return any direct
assignments within 1 year. Micro allocations made
under section 6.10 are not subject to this requirement.
An LIR allocation shall disqualify an organization from
receiving a direct end site assignment unless it
agrees to return all LIR allocations within 1 year.
Micro allocations made under section 6.10 are not
subject to this requirement.
The lack of provider independent direct assignments is a
significant impediment to adoption of IPv6 by enterprises and
large content sites. This policy proposal defines clear
verifiable requirements for receiving a direct assignment.
Current IPv6 multi-homing was chosen as the key requirement for
the following reasons:
a) it is reasonable to expect that those reqesting provider
independence would be connecting to two or more providers.
b) the requirement of demonstrating current multi-homing will
promote active deployment of IPv6 by those seeking direct
It is possible that future technology developments will render
this policy unnecessary. At this time there are no viable
alternatives for IPv6 provider independence, other than becoming
It is likely that this will help conserve IPv6 address space
as most organizations requiring provider independence could
easily qualify for an LIR allocation under current policy.
Allowing them to apply for the more appropriate /48 is
responsible resource management.
This policy can easily be adapted to increase requirements for
direct assignments if future conditions warrant. For example,
the multihoming demonstration requirement could be increased
to three or four separate LIR's. Additional verification
of active current multihoming could be used. Or, as native
connectivity becomes widespread the option of tunnel based
connections for justification could be removed.
It is extremely unlikely that this will result in a "land rush"
of direct assignments. The requirements in this policy require
more effort than the current requirements for a /32.
Alternatively, a large number of applications would be a
good sign of sincere IPv6 deployment due to the requirement
to be currently multihomed.
Timetable for implementation: Immediately