[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information from NRPM

Hi Cathy.

> 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 have withdrawn this proposal.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.

I concur. Indeed, at the time the wording at issue was formulated (and
I was one of the authors of the proposal), I believed that having no
wording would result in no guidance being available, and (channeling
concerns from some in the IETF community) there was a real concern
that the default practice would be give end sites "too small" a block,
precisely because that would be the default approach given IPv4
existing practice.

> 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).

I think this is really what is needed. Something more detailed, with
more background and things to think about, etc. And it is arguably
more global than specific to one RIR, since the issues to consider are
presumably universal.

Where/how should such a document be developed and housed? v6ops (in
the IETF) might be one place, even if not ideal.

Thomas