[arin-ppml] Simplified IPv6 policy

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 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
improvement.

One serious problem jumps out at me:

> 6.2.3.2  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
> 6.3.3.2.2.
>
> 6.2.3.2.1 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.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



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