[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Member Services]

On 12 October 2006 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) concluded its review
of 'Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria' and accepted it as a
formal policy proposal for discussion by the community.

The proposal is designated Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6
initial allocation criteria. The proposal text is below and can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_7.html

All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal
2006-7 prior to it being presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in
the spring of 2007. Both the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing
List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used to determine the
community consensus regarding this policy proposal.

The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html

ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



## * ##


Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

Author: Jordi Palet Martinez

Proposal Version: 1

Submission Date: 11/10/2006

Proposal type: delete

Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:

Delete section 6.5.1.1 d. of NRPM

Rationale:

The existing policy is fine for an existing and known ISP in the ARIN
region, but is not considering the case of new ISPs, which may want to
start offering IPv6 services. Is artificial to ask them for start with
IPv4 services (which typically will do, but not necessarily), wait for
weeks/months (?) to be "known", and then come back for the IPv6
allocation request.

In addition to that, they need to have a plan for more than 200 /48
assignments. The first question here is that there is room for business
with one or just a few IPv6 customers, and it seems irrational not
allowing this type of business to be possible, may be even it can be
considered against the anti-trust regulations.

Second point is regarding the usage of the /48. An ISP may decide to
assign a different prefix size, example a cellular operator with
probably will use /64.

Is important to clarify that the "200" comes from historical reasons
when this proposal was jointly developed with RIPE and APNIC, but the
situation is that other regions such as LACNIC and AfriNIC already got
rid of this requirement, and in both, RIPE and APNIC is under
discussion. This may even bring to a possible "untrue" plan to be
suggested by an ISP if he needs to get an IPv6 prefix allocated.

Regarding the restriction of the usage in 5 years, I think is enough
with the criteria indicated in c that the address space is advertised,
as there is no ISP interested in getting a prefix which is not being
used. Is an operational cost that doesn't make sense if there is not
business beyond covering it, never mind if we talk about a few months or
a few years.

In summary, the proposal will allow new ISPs, ISPs with a reduced number
of customers, or ISPs willing to offer only IPv6 services, to
immediately access this resource.

No financial/liability implications for the community and ARIN are
foreseen, on the other way around, it will allow ARIN better fulfilling
its mission.

No special conditions, fees, exceptions, etc. seem to be required.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate