[arin-ppml] Simplified IPv6 policy

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at> wrote:
> Here's an attempt at how we might simplify IPv6 policy, incorporating many
> of the ideas we've discussed recently.  It's much simpler than current
> policy, but is still quite long.  It's also late, so I reserve the right to
> make mistakes, and to disagree with myself later.  :-)

Hi Scott,

I think your thoughts here would be a major improvement to IPv6
policy. Not as good as 103 (naturally!) but nevertheless a major

One serious problem jumps out at me:

>  X-Small (/48)
> To qualify for a /48 allocation or assignment, an organization must:
>    * Serve at least 500 hosts, if multihomed; or
>    * Serve at least 1000 hosts; or
>    * Demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments and
> allocations, each of which must be covered by any current ARIN RSA; or
>    * Be a critical infrastructure provider of the Internet, including public
> exchange points, core DNS service providers (e.g. ICANN-sanctioned root,
> gTLD, and ccTLD operators) as well as the RIRs and IANA; or
>    * Qualify for a Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure per
> Critical Infrastructure
> Organizations qualified as critical infrastructure providers may be granted
> multiple /48 allocations in certain situations.  Exchange point allocations
> MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose. All
> other micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of other blocks reserved for
> micro-allocation purposes. ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly
> available. Exchange point operators must provide justification for the
> allocation, including: connection policy, location, other participants
> (minimum of two total), ASN, and contact information. ISPs and other
> organizations receiving these micro-allocations will be charged under the
> ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for
> end-users. This policy does not preclude exchange point operators from
> requesting address space under other policies.

IMO, this is faulty. When you get this part right, you won't have to
carve out an exception for Internet-Critical Infrastructure because
it'll fit naturally with all the other low-server-count facilities of
sufficient value. Like the ones that today multihome a few servers
with an IPv4 /24 justified because they're multihomed.

I'll read it more carefully later and offer additional comments. This
was the one that jumped out at me.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at  bill at
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004