[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initialallocation criteria - revised text

> Aside: It's not entirely clear to me if a provider not 
> connected to the 
> public Internet can become an LIR; does private "connectivity" and 
> "advertising" count?

It counts. RFC 2050 still applies even to IPv6 addressing.

I think our main problem with IPv6 policy is the ISP-centric wording.
For instance, a railway sensor network that spans North America seems to
fit into the category "end-site" which is a totally irrational way to
describe such a network.

One way to address this issue is to restructure the policy and make some
implicit things explicit. For instance:
  =====
Secition A) ARIN provides allocations of IPv6 address space to
organizations who operate continually growing networks which connect
many other organizations together. The classic examples of this are the
ISP (Internet Service Provider), the VAN (Value-Added Network) and the
Industry Extranet (automotive, financial services). These organizations
become ARIN LIRs(Local Internet Registries) and are expected to provide
assignments of IPv6 address space to organizations who connect to their
networks.  

Section B) ARIN also provides assignments of IPv6 address space to
organizations who are building an IPv6 network that remains largely
under their control with limited interconnectivity with other networks.
This ranges from enterprises to railway consortia to cellphone
operators. The key distinguishing characteristic of these organizations
is that their networks are not continually growing at such a scale that
they have to plan for additional allocations of IPv6 addresses at
regular intervals. In other words, they are not network service
providers whose prime business is network connectivity services.
  =====

Given something like this in the policy, then it becomes simpler to
address the area under contention.

Organizations cannot receive IPv6 addresses under both section A and
section B. 

Section A organizations must provide sufficient documentation to show
that they are providing IPv6 network services or will do so within the
first year after receiving an allocation.

Section A organizations must sign an LIR agreement with ARIN.

Section A organizations must maintain an active abuse desk contact with
ARIN.

Section A organizations must ...

You can see what I am getting at. We've been hacking away at minor
adjustments to this wording for ages with no resolution. People can't
agree because they don't share the same understanding of the existing
wording. This lack of shared understanding then extends to the minor
changes as well. The solution is to rework a larger section of policy
(or multiple sections of policy) to get some much clearer prose in place
which is unambiguous. In the process, there are some things that are not
clearly spelled out in the policy and they could be. I know it is hard
for the ISP-oriented folks to see this so I hope some of the corporate
members will step up and contribute here. ARIN policy does not have to
be so mystifying.

--Michael Dillon