ARIN-PPML Message

[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites - revised text

I support this latest revision of 2005-1, as it addresses most of the
concerns raised thus far by myself and others.

I would actually prefer that we use Owen & Kevin's 6.5.8.1 wording,
combined with Andrew's 6.5.8.2 and 6.5.8.3 wording, but I would also
support this revision of 2005-1 as written.

-Scott

On 02/10/06 at 11:44am -0500, Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:

> Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End
> Sites has been revised by the authors. This proposal is open for
> discussion on this mailing list and will be on the agenda at the
> upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.
>
> The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available
> at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ### * ###
>
>
> Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites
>
> Author: Owen Delong, Kevin Loch
>
> Proposal Version: 3 (2006-02-09)
>
> Proposal type: modify
>
> Policy term: permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Add new subsection in section 6.5 of the NRPM:
>
>     6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites
>
>       6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct assignment, an
>                organization must:
>
>         a) not be an IPv6 LIR; and
>         b) Qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under
>            the IPv4 policy currently in effect.
>
>       6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to end sites
>
>           Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria
>           are eligible to receive a direct assignment.  The minimum size
>           of the assignment is /48.  Organizations requesting a larger
>           assignment must provide documentation justifying the need for
>           additional subnets.
>
>       6.5.8.3. Subsequent Assignment Size
>
>         Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
>         subnets is justified.  When possible assignments will be made
>         from an adjacent address block.
>
> Rationale:
>
> In IPv4 policy there are three main types of organizations that
> addresses are delegated to.
>
>     o ISP's receive allocations directly from ARIN or from other ISP's
>     o End Users receive assignments from ISP's
>     o Large and/or multihomed End Users receive assignments directly from
>       ARIN.
>
> The third category is currently missing from IPv6 policy and this is
> believed to be severely hindering deployment by those organizations. In
> IPv6 policy-speak:
>
>     o LIR's receive allocations directly from ARIN
>     o End Sites receive assignments from LIR's
>
> This policy proposes:
>
>     o Large and/or multihomed End Sites receive assignments directly
>       from ARIN.
>
> This  policy applies to organizations with networks that are large
> and/or multihomed.  Like their IPv4 counterparts they do not make
> assignments to external organizations. They instead assign space
> internally to their own facilities. Similarly to IPv4 These internal
> assignments are not submitted to ARIN via swip/rwhois.
>
> For transition purposes an organization that qualifies for IPv4 space
> today is considered elligible, regardless of whether they were
> considered an ISP or End User under IPv4 policy.  It is expected that
> the IPv6 only (non transition) requirements will be developed as
> experience is gained.
>
> It is reommended that these assignments be made from a separate address
> block set aside for this purpose and that at least a /44 be reserved
> around each assignment for possible expansion.  One bit should be
> reserved around assignments /44 and larger.
>
> Timetable for implementation: immediately
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>