[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites
Member Services
memsvcs at arin.net
Thu Sep 1 15:57:51 EDT 2005
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and, utilisation requirement
- Next message: [ppml] Alternative address distribution systems (was Proposal 2005-8)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
The ARIN Advisory Council conducted a meeting on August 31, 2005, to consider the proposed policy "IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites". The AC decided that there was enough similarity between this proposal and policy Proposal 2005-1 that it will work with both authors to merge these proposals into Policy Proposal 2005-1. The AC expects to complete this work with the authors no later than September 16, 2005, at which time the revised policy language for Policy Proposal 2005-1 will be published to the PPML for discussion by the community. The original proposed policy text is below and can be found at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2005-August/003985.html Regards, Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ### * ### Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Direct assignments to end sites Author: Kevin Loch Policy Statement: Changes to NRPM section 6: add new section 6.5.8: 6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites. 6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an organization must: a) not be an LIR; b) be an end site; c) be currently multi-homed using IPv6 to two or more separate LIR's. native connections or statically configured tunnels may be used to satisfy this requirement. d) The prefix(es) used by the end site to demonstrate multihoming must be visible in the ARIN whois databse or via rwhois as being assigned to the requesting organization. 6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to end sites Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria are eligible to receive a direct assignment of /48 6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site organization. End sites that require more than 65536 subnets should request space from an LIR or consider becoming an LIR. 6.5.8.4. Migration from end site to LIR A direct end site assignment shall not disqualify an organization from becoming an LIR and ceasing to be an end site if it otherwise meets the requirements for an initial allocation. Organizations receiving an LIR allocation must renumber into that allocation and return any direct assignments within 1 year. Micro allocations made under section 6.10 are not subject to this requirement. An LIR allocation shall disqualify an organization from receiving a direct end site assignment unless it agrees to return all LIR allocations within 1 year. Micro allocations made under section 6.10 are not subject to this requirement. Rationale: The lack of provider independent direct assignments is a significant impediment to adoption of IPv6 by enterprises and large content sites. This policy proposal defines clear verifiable requirements for receiving a direct assignment. Current IPv6 multi-homing was chosen as the key requirement for the following reasons: a) it is reasonable to expect that those reqesting provider independence would be connecting to two or more providers. b) the requirement of demonstrating current multi-homing will promote active deployment of IPv6 by those seeking direct assignments. It is possible that future technology developments will render this policy unnecessary. At this time there are no viable alternatives for IPv6 provider independence, other than becoming an LIR. It is likely that this will help conserve IPv6 address space as most organizations requiring provider independence could easily qualify for an LIR allocation under current policy. Allowing them to apply for the more appropriate /48 is responsible resource management. This policy can easily be adapted to increase requirements for direct assignments if future conditions warrant. For example, the multihoming demonstration requirement could be increased to three or four separate LIR's. Additional verification of active current multihoming could be used. Or, as native connectivity becomes widespread the option of tunnel based connections for justification could be removed. It is extremely unlikely that this will result in a "land rush" of direct assignments. The requirements in this policy require more effort than the current requirements for a /32. Alternatively, a large number of applications would be a good sign of sincere IPv6 deployment due to the requirement to be currently multihomed. Timetable for implementation: Immediately
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and, utilisation requirement
- Next message: [ppml] Alternative address distribution systems (was Proposal 2005-8)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list