[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification

Hello all...

At 01:08 PM 1/26/2007 +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

>> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Delete section 6.5.4.2. of NRMP.
>>> 
>> 
>> If the goal of this policy change is to remove the requirement for the RIR
>> to check a multiple /48 assignment to an endsite, then this policy should
>> define the criteria for an LIR to determine if a larger than /48 assignment
>> is needed.  Without a criteria in policy an LIR could choose to assign any
>> size block to an endsite.  Under the wording of section 6.5.2.1 only the
>> word "justified" can be labeled as a criteria for determining the
>> assignment size.   How is "justified" defined for an endsite in this
context?
>
>The question is the same right now for ARIN. How is "justified" defined for
>hotsmasters to authorize that assignment ?
>

At least, when ARIN is used as a filter for these assignments we have staff
which are familiar with IP allocation/assignment policies and can use their
best judgement based upon their experience to apply a consistent method of
"justification" across the entire region.  While the "justification" may
not be codified in the policy it can be created as a ARIN working practice
which could be moved into the policy at a later time.


>> 
>> While most LIRs are usually reasonable, to me it seems important to include
>> defined and somewhat rigorous criteria for the assignment of multiple /48s
>> and a requirement for the LIR to record this justification for later
>> auditing by the RIR when an LIR returns to the RIR for an additional
>> allocation.
>
>I believe the the LIR is reasonable also, and that's why I will much prefer
>to have them taking this decision. I'm not saying that the ARIN hostmasters
>criteria is not reasonable, but if we don't have a concrete definition for
>"justified", and think is fair enough to keep trusting the LIR.
>
>Otherwise, agree with you, let's work on a possible definition for
>"justified". Do you think we can find an agreement about that ?
>

Lets try...

How can show immediate need for at least 50% of the /64 subnets (e.g. have
the need for at least 32,768 subnets to receive a /47 assignment)

Andrew