ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)

On Nov 17, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> On 11/17/2010 10:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/17/2010 8:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>> Policy Proposal 121: Sensible IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
>>>> 
>>>> ARIN acknowledges receipt of the policy proposal that can be found below.
>>>> 
>>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
>>>> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
>>>> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
>>>> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
>>>> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>>>> 
>>>> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
>>>> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
>>>> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
>>>> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Rationale section is missing a discussion of the impact of this
>>> policy change on DFZ growth.
>>> 
>> I believe that if anything, it would reduce DFZ growth, but, expect it
>> to be mostly neutral. I left this out of the rationale section because
>> I didn't think the impact one way or another would be enough to
>> be particularly relevant to the discussion.
>> 
>> Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
>> 
> 
> I think it is important to put into the Rationale the statement that
> this is DFZ-growth neutral, that is, if you believe that it IS DFZ-growth neutral.
> 
> By inserting the statement that you feel it's DFZ-growth-neutral into
> the Rationale you are showing that you have responsibly considered the
> impact of modifying the qualification criteria on the DFZ.
> That makes all the difference in the world.  Lacking that it makes the
> reader wonder if this proposal has really been well thought out.
> 
I don't believe I am changing the qualifying criteria. At least not significantly.

What I am changing is the amount of space a qualifying entity can get.

By increasing the maximum amount of space allowed (possibly dramatically),
if anything, this should reduce the impact on the DFZ.

However, I really don't think that the IPv6 DFZ size is of tremendous concern.
I think that the DFZ size is much more of an IPv4 issue. The IPv6 DFZ, even
when IPv6 is fully deployed is likely to be less than 20% of the current
IPv4 DFZ.

I think that excessive focus on DFZ size has flawed ARIN policy for years
and including it in the rationale for this policy would only serve to further
that practice.

Owen