[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

I dont agree with taking this text out.  It isnt ARIN's job to set routing policy.  However, it is ARIN's job to clearly stipulate how the IP addresses are to be requested and what the use of them is being granted for.  Yes, this walks the line of routing, but realistically, what we do with IP addresses is always going to have "thermal crossover" with routing.

Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Jason Schiller
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:43 PM
To: Stacy Taylor
Cc: bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com; ppml at arin.net; Jason Schiller
Subject: Re: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation


Stacy, Bill, 

Thanks, that is good feed back.  The authors of 2006-2 agreed to take out
that text in the second attempt, since "ARIN does not set routing policy"

But that still leaves part of the question unanswered.  Is it worth noting
that the intent is that this micro-allocation for critical infrastructure
is not intended to be advertised to the global routing table (without
trying to set routing policy)?  

There seems to be some people that can more easliy adopt this policy given
that in theory there should be no impact on the global routing
table.  There is one set of conditions that allow you to qualify for this
space, and those conditions prevent you from routing the micro-allocation
as an aggregate, thus the routes will never get outside of your routing
domain.  

Just wondering if people find value in that as part of the policy, or is
clearly understood?

__Jason


==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Stacy Taylor wrote:

> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:12:32 -0700
> From: Stacy Taylor <ipgoddess at gmail.com>
> To: "bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com" <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com>
> Cc: Jason Schiller <jason.schiller at mci.com>, ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: Re: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
> 
> I likewise think that language should not be in the policy.  ARIN AC
> is as we speak in the process of looking at the NRPM with the possible
> intention to take out any operational recommendations.
> Let's not put in what we'll likely wind up taking out down the road.
> :)
> Stacy
> 
> On 8/23/06, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:43:00PM -0400, Jason Schiller wrote:
> > (quoting unnamed sources)
> > >
> > > This micro-allocation MUST not be routed.  If an organization is found to
> > > be routing their micro-allocation for internal infrastructure they must
> > > either correct this mistake or surrender thier micro-allocation for
> > > internal infrastructure.
> > >
> >
> >         humph... routed -where-?
> >         prefixes not routed are effective only in the single broadcast domain
> >         where they are used.  me thinks this "requirement" is overly broad
> >         and screams for the creation of the "routing police".  e.g.
> >         Geoff and the RIB/FIBettes. eh?
> >
> >         i'm in favor of -NOT- having this language.
> >
> > --bill
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> :):)
> /S
> 

_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml