[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
> ### * ###
> Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
> Author: Andrew Dul
> Proposal type: new
> Policy term: permanent
> Policy statement:
> Add new subsection to the NRPM:
> 6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites
> 18.104.22.168. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
> organization must meet all of the following criteria:
> 1. not be an LIR;
> 2. be an end site;
> 3. be currently multihomed using IPv4;
> 4. have a direct assignment from ARIN of at least a IPv4 /19 and
> can show the current utilization of 80% of an IPv4 /19 equivalent.
/19 is too large to encorage enough of an ipv adoption,
please decrease to /22
> 22.214.171.124. Direct assignment size to end sites
> Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria
> are eligible to receive a direct assignment of /48 out of a reserved
> /44. Direct Assignments shall be allocated from a separate super-block
> to allow for LIRs to filter.
> 126.96.36.199. Subse quent direct assignments to end sites
^-- split word
> Organizations assignment size may be increased by 1 bit (to a
> maximum of /44) when they demonstrate the active usage of 50% of the
> assigned /64 subnets.
> Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site
> organization under Section 6.5.8.
What if organization with large ipv4 net (/16 or larger) has network that
is geographically split and chooses to announce part of it from one place
and part from another. By this policy they will receive only one ipv6
network block and would not be able to make this work.
> Organizations which can demonstrate active usage of more than 50%
> of /64 networks from a /44 assignment shall qualify for an additional
> allocation as an LIR.
^---- I think "RIR" is meant to be here
> This policy is proposed as an alternative to the existing 2005-1 policy
> proposal. This policy is intended to be more conservative that the
> existing proposed 2005-1 policy. While this policy does allow PI
> assignments to end-sites, it limits the scope to current IPv4 holders
> with direct assignments. A more conservative policy is desirable as the
> first IPv6 PI policy.
> Current ARIN policy does not permit an end-site from obtaining a
> Provider Independent IPv6 address block directly from ARIN. There is
> currently no viable IPv6 multihoming method available for these
> end-sites. Shim6 & other methods have been proposed as a possible
> method to meet multihoming requirements. Today, no implementation or
> alternatives exist to ?traditional? IPv4 multihoming which announces
> unique address space from an ASN.
> The largest end-sites (corporations & content providers) have the
> greatest to gain and/or lose by not having an available method to
> multihome. While IPv6 provides for stateless auto configuration for end
> hosts, no new methods for renumbering the infrastructure are available.
> The cost and complexity of renumbering these large organizations makes
> it essential to provide stable address resources which are not assigned
> from a LIR.
> The lack of an end-site assignment policy is currently preventing the
> real planning and deployment of IPv6 networks in these organizations.
> Other policy proposals (2005-1) addressing this issue have been
> presented at the ARIN 15 & 16 meetings. This policy proposal attempts
> to address the issues that were raised on the ppml mailing list and at
> the public policy meetings for 2005-1.
> Specifically, the main issue surrounding the creation of consensus on
> this policy appears to be the criteria for which end-sites should be
> able to obtain an endsite assignment. Concerns have been raised about
> the creation of a new IPv6 ?swamp? by having a policy that is too
> lenient. This issue is addressed in the policy by limiting the endsite
> assignments to current organizations with a modest IPv4 assignment.
> The assignment of IPv4 resources is orthogonal to the assignment of IPv6
> addresses. However, the use of existing IPv4 assignments and ARIN
> membership are postulated as an appropriate regulator for the initial
> assignments under an IPv6 endsite policy. It is reasonable to consider
> changes to the membership and IPv4 assignment requirements in the
> future. This review should be conducted after the endsite assignment
> policy has been in place long enough to understand the demand for
> endsite IPv6 assignments and the development of IPv6 networks have matured.
> This policy proposal does not attempt to address the assignment needs
> for endsites which currently do not have IPv4 assignments.
> Timetable for implementation: within 90 days of approval by the BoT
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net