[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA

If I understand this proposal correctly, I cannot support it as written.
 
It says
 
"To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
 
1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and 2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or 
allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect, or
demonstrate efficient utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment or 
allocation covered by a current ARIN RSA."
 
As I understand this proposal, it is an attempt to get legacy v4 holders 
to come in under the ARIN umbrella and get started on v6.  I could not 
find an exact definition of efficient utilization" but I think many 
(most?) of the legacy people not under an RSA might not qualify under 
that criteria.  I expect that most of the legacy holders who have not 
had to sign an RSA with ARIN for additional space are 
companies/businesses that haven't had to grow to the point where they 
would meet the "efficient utilization" criteria.  At the time these v4s 
were issued, we had 3 choices.  a Class A (/8), Class B(/16) or Class 
C(/24).  Except for the smallest of us home office types, most people 
estimated optimistically and got a bigger space than they needed. 
(Remember at that time, the internet was "infinite".)  Those who morphed 
to ISPs and needed more later had to come under an RSA as they grew.  
The rest were relatively static and most probably didn't grow to 
"efficiently" fill the address space they were given.  Since most of the 
ones who grew eventually came under an RSA, the group this policy 
proposal is aimed at would not be covered by it without having to trade 
in their existing v4 space or in the case of Class C/24s couldn't keep 
their /24.  There certainly seems to be no incentive for them to come in 
from the cold and many reasons not to  As a result, I don't see where 
this proposal as written will accomplish its stated goal and thus should 
not be adopted.

Perhaps if it were worded "are actively using the legacy space", that 
would encourage more to join.  I'm not sure what would be done with the 
/8s if they were using the equivalent of a /16 or less but if that were 
case, they might be able to give back some of the /8 without requiring 
any renumbering.

As an example, I have a /24 and have 15-30 devices on my network.  This 
might grow in the future but probably not to 128   Under existing and 
this proposed policy, I don't believe I would qualify for PI v6 space 
and thus see no reason to be in favor of it. (and frankly not much 
reason to continue to read through the sometimes prolific traffic on the 
group :-) ).  I expect many of the mis-sent unsubscribe messages that 
have shown up were sent by those in a similar situation.

Cliff

--
Cliff Bedore
7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/