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

Scott

See comments below

> 
> Cliff,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> I believe I addressed this issue in the Rationale section of the policy 
> proposal, but I'm not sure if I was completely clear.  Let me outline 
> how I intended this to work:
> 
>     * If you have a /24, and are using it for multihoming, that should
>       be considered efficient use, so you should be able to bring the
>       /24 under an RSA and get an IPv6 PI block.
>     * If you have anything larger than a /24, and are utilizing less
>       than half of it, you should return as much of it as necessary (by
>       bisecting your block, returning half of it, and repeating as
>       necessary) to bring your usage up above 50%.  The remaining block
>       can then be brought under an RSA, and you can receive an IPv6 PI
>       block.
> 
> 
> Would that work for you?  If not, why not?  If so, do you believe that 
> the Rationale is sufficient guidance to ARIN as to how to evaluate 
> "efficient utilization" in this context, or do you think the policy 
> proposal requires clarification?
> 

It would not work for me.  I am not multi-homed.  I have a single DSL line to
my upstream provider.  I know in the best of all worlds I would be but I'm not
now.  I think the problem is that there are a fair number of legacy people who
are like me.  They are probably /24s since that was what was given if you
coouldn't justify a /16.

Cliff


> Thanks for the feedback,
> Scott
> 
> Cliff Bedore wrote:
> > 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/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >   
> 


-- 
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/