[ppml] Proposed Policy: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Rich Emmings
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 10:00 AM
> To: Member Services
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: Proposal to amend ARIN 
> IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement
> 
> Opposed.
> 
> Does this proposal help with a short term problem, or promote 
> the adoption of IPv6?

Since the potential problem is long term, we shouldn't do
anything about it?

> Large scale introduction of /56 addresses may also increase 
> the global routing table size.

How?  It might increase your local routing table size, but
ISPs (LIRs) will still aggregate at their borders, unless
leaking is required, and even then, a /56 doesn't take up
more router slots than a /48.


> End site assignment of a /48 is a recommendation and nothing 
> prohibits the assignment of a /56 downstream where appropriate.

http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six54 :
--
6.5.4. Assignment

LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following
provisions.

6.5.4.1. Assignment address space size

Assignments are to be made in accordance with the existing guidelines
(RFC3177,RIRs-on-48), which are summarized here as:

- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers

--

That's not squishy language.  It is exactly the language 
used in RFC3177, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Allocations 
to Sites," which is an informational RFC, but it looks to me 
like the RIRs took the recommendations and made them policy.



> The advocacy for the number of average end-site nets can 
> probably be argued 
> down to the next nibble or bits forever.

So you advocate setting policy based on the .001% case?  No
network left behind?


> Changes slow implementation.  That some of these changes are 
> necessary doesn't alter the impact.
> At this time, this is an unnecessary change, so let's skip it 
> and move on to implementation issues.

I'm in favor of building right the first time, and in assigning
appropriate levels of resources.  


Lee


> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Member Services wrote:
> 
> > ARIN received the following proposed policy. In accordance 
> with the ARIN
> > Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
> > posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List and being 
> placed on ARIN's
> > website.
> >
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal and 
> within ten
> > working days may decide to:
> > 1)  Support the proposal as is,
> > 2)  Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine one or more
> > policy proposals, or
> > 3)  Not support the policy proposal.
> >
> > If the AC supports the proposal or reaches an agreement to 
> work with the
> > author, then the proposal will be posted as a formal policy 
> proposal to
> > the Public Policy Mailing List and it will be presented at 
> the Public
> > Policy Meeting. If the AC does not support the proposal, 
> then the author
> > may elect to use the petition process to advance the 
> proposal. If the
> > author elects not to petition or the petition fails, then 
> the proposed
> > policy will be considered closed.
> >
> > The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be 
> found at:
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
> >
> > Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> > ### * ###
> >
> > Policy Proposal Name: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and
> > utilisation requirement (Section 6 of ARIN Number Resource 
> Policy Manual)
> >
> > Author: Thomas Narten and Lea Roberts
> >
> > [Balance deleted]
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>