[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM

Well, it is not quite true that the RIR cannot control the assignment practices of a provider.
Irresponsible...against the dictates of the RIR...assignment earns the provider a harder time receiving subsequent allocations, right?

Still, mostly I agree with what Dan has to say here.

Guidance, with rational should be one source of information...you SHOULD not allocated beyond the needs e.g. /56 for.../48 for etc...because...
Operational direction, should be another...e.g. this IS the way we do things....e.g. Templates, authentication, etc.
Best Practice, perhaps from third parties on aggregation or multihoming practice.

All this could be collected and referenced(linked) where needed from within the NRPM.


-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Alexander, Daniel
Sent: Thu 2/15/2007 9:33 PM
To: cja at daydream.com; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM
 

This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy
proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt
around the extent of an RIR's control.

One thought is "These statements should be removed." This is because
ARIN should not be mandating what an ISP/LIR can allocate to it's users.
Even if it wanted to, it has little ability to enforce such a statement,
so why try and take this stance. Once an ISP/LIR obtains an allocation,
they can allocate in whatever way they feel is necessary. ARIN's main
recourse to enforce responsible use is the initial and subsequent
allocation requirements. Trying to make these kinds of demands gives
ARIN an intrusive image it can't control.

The other thought is "These statements should remain." This is because
ARIN needs some mechanism to provide direction, in response to
organizations seeking guidance, on how to allocate responsibly, and what
is expected of them. 

It is not an issue that the information is in there, but where in the
NRPM it is placed. By having the statement in section 6.5.4 it leans
towards the first approach, trying to define how an ISP/LIR should
service it's customers.

Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should conduct
it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use
resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed wording in
6.5.4.1 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section
6.5.4.2 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear
initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with
nothing to prevent irresponsible practices.

This is a very subtle difference but seems to be where many proposals
run into issues. As a result, these statements should remain as
guidelines, until the community is comfortable with the development of
the surrounding IPv6 policies.

My two cents,
Dan


________________________________

From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
cja at daydream.com
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:34 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational
Informationfrom NRPM


Hi everyone,

I would like to have some discussion here about this.   For the time
being I have withdrawn this proposal.  The reason is that it seems that
the information that it strikes is information that the ARIN staff uses
to help guide LIRs to assign reasonable blocks to their customers.  When
an LIR assigns /40s to each of its customers just because, ARIN can
point to the guidelines as to what more reasonable assignments are.  It
is pretty much a given that this information needs to exist somewhere
but it's not quite policy.  I'd like your thoughts about this.  

One idea is to have a document that's like the NRPM but contains
operational guidelines for LIRs.  Maybe like an NPOG (Number Policy
Operational Guidelines).  

Thanks!
----Cathy


On 2/10/07, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote: 

	ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with
the ARIN
	Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is
being
	posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being
placed on
	ARIN's website.
	
	The AC will review this proposal and may decide to:
	
	1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is
presented;
	
	2. Work with the author to:
	      a) clarify the language or intent of the proposal; 
	      b) divide the proposal into two (2) or more proposals; or
	      c) combine the proposal with other proposals; or,
	
	3. Not accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal.
	
	The AC will review this proposal at their next meeting. If the
AC 
	accepts the proposal, then it will be posted as a formal policy
proposal
	to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. If
the AC
	does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that
decision; 
	and at that time the author may elect to use the petition
process to
	advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or
the
	petition fails, then the proposal will be 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
<http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html> 
	
	Regards,
	
	Member Services
	American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
	
	
	## * ##
	
	
	Policy Proposal Name: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information
from NRPM
	
	Authors:
	Lea Roberts 
	Cathy Aronson
	
	Proposal Version: Version 0
	
	Submission Date: 8 February 2007
	
	Proposal type: Modify
	
	Policy term: Permanent
	
	Policy statement:
	
	The following parts of Section 6.5.4.1 should be removed from
the
	Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).
	
	NRPM Section 6.5.4.1 states:
	
	The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only
	guidelines): 
	
	* /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
	
	* /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
	over the next 5 years.
	
	* /48 for larger sites
	
	Rationale:
	
	Discussions in recent public policy meetings, as well as in
Advisory
	Council meetings, have led to the consensus that operational
	information, such as these IPv6 guidelines, should be removed
from the
	NRPM. This section is a clear example of text not directly
related to 
	ARIN policy and so it is proposed that it should be removed.
	
	Timetable for implementation: Immediate
	
	_______________________________________________
	PPML mailing list
	PPML at arin.net
	http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
	


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

We
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20070216/afabf1ef/attachment.html