[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

What I see frustrating here is that everyone agrees we need some sort of "internet community agreement" that addresses V6 routing.  I hear alot of people asking for this, including myself.  Yet I dont hear any specific forum stepping forward to help facilitate this need.

Saying Jason is passing the buck is really not true.  I see him as one of the people yelling outloud "hey I'm here to help, but a need a forum to facilitate."  

I ask myself "why does it appear that all known forums" are unwilling to touch this issue?  I keep hearing "its not our charter".  When I hear this "reason" I wonder again, do these charters exist as a hard bound document and if so, maybe it should be re-written.  Or is there a "stewardship and spirit of the charter" that exists that we just need to acknowledge?

I also keep hearing "work the issue out between you and the other providers".  I agree, great idea, but we need a forum of facilitation to do this.  Back door deals are what come from "agreements" made without a community forum and this can leave certain businesses out in the cold.  I dont see this as a good internet community minded solution.

So what then?  Do we create yet another Task Force?  Or just keep pointing our fingers in a circle from Forum to Forum?

The lack of facilitation in this issue needs to stop.  We need to write some form of best practice for routing V6.  Maybe it doesnt need to be an ARIN sanctioned policy, but I suggest we support time, document creation and discussion at a joint ARIN/NANOG meeting.  In good stewardship and spirit of the Internet I think it is our responsiblity to support the creation of a "best practice document" that is created by the community, not by back door deals.

Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at [mailto:ppml-bounces at]On Behalf Of
bmanning at
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 1:21 AM
To: Jason Schiller (schiller at
Cc: ppml at
Subject: Re: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

 Apr 24, 2006 at 05:46:28PM -0400, Jason Schiller (schiller at wrote:
> I too was frustrated by the comments that "ARIN does not set routing
> policy".  

	arin has -never set routing policy for others because
	arin only runs its own routers.  i'm sure that if you
	could convince arin to run your routers, it would implement
	a routing policy for you. :)

> It can be very difficult to advise your company to do the right thing for
> the good of the Internet when it is counter to good business
> practices.  It is a little bit easier if one can hold up a "good IP
> stewardship policy" that most people are following.

	this is really passing the buck Jason.  Asking ARIN to 
	be your backstop instead of coming up with your own "good
	IP stewardship policy" is placing an unwanted burden on 

> So should we re-charter ARIN to publish a non-binding "Routing Policy
> Guideline Manual (RPGM)"  or should we just fold this into the NRPM?

	i'd say neither...

> The other question is if this is the right forum?  and if not, then what
> is the right forum?  NANOG?  only joint ARIN/NANOG meetings?
> Also, how does this relate to other regions?  I am told that RIPE
> discusses routing policy.  Should there be an NRO equilivent role with
> regard to global routing policy?  

	RIPE does ... but it also forces its members to do other things
	that ARIN members might find objectionable.  unclear what LACNIC,
	AFRNIC and APNIC do wrt enforcing routing policy...  but there
	does seem to be some interest in RIRs -signing- delegations.
	while this does not set the routing policy, it does disambiguate
	prefix origin.

> ___Jason
> ==========================================================================
> Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
> Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
> Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at
> UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at
> The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
> it increases traffic on the Internet.
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 09:23:49 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at>
> > To: Owen DeLong <owen at>
> > Cc: ppml at
> > Subject: [ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure
> > 
> > On 04/14/06 at 11:41pm -0700, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> > >
> > > > as we also discussed at the ARIN XVII meeting, it would be useful for
> > > > some group to define guidelines for assignment policy that would clarify
> > > > the issues you raise.  it seems that in ARIN policy is not the correct
> > > > place yet no other group comes to mind.  anyway, as a rough suggestion, I
> > > > would say that end sites should get 4 to 8 times as much address space
> > > > assigned as they think they might use using today's networking techniques.
> > > >
> > > Perhaps we need a BCP track within ARIN for number resource utilization.
> > > A process similar to, but, potentially a bit less formal than, the IRPEP
> > > which would be used to develop "Recommended Practices for Number Resource
> > > Allocation, Assignment, and Utilization".
> > 
> > I like this idea.
> > 
> > > I agree this doesn't belong in policy, but, I do think that ARIN might be
> > > the right body to coalesce such information, at least on a regional basis.
> > 
> > Perhaps we could use the existing policy process (or something similar and
> > parallel) to develop recommendations, though.  Have folks submit
> > "Recommendation Proposals", which could be run through the PPML and
> > presented at ARIN meetings.  Perhaps a lower standard of consensus would
> > be required for adoption...
> > 
> > -Scott
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at
> >
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at
PPML mailing list