[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Jeff Williams]

Owen and all,

Owen DeLong wrote:

> >> I don't see the ARIN policy the same way you do.  I think it is equally
> >> liberal to RFC 3177 and states that the summary is just that, a summary.
> >> I don't see anything in the ARIN policy that says you MUST issue a /48
> >> to such a subscriber, only that you can.
> >
> >   Agreed.  And it would seem reasonable that definitive but still
> > flexible set of criteria should be delineated as to when such
> > an allocation when requested is justified and should be issued.
> >
> I'm not so sure about that.  I think that leaving such delineation
> up to the ISP is quite prudent at this time.

The problem or problems I see with this approach is that ISP's
frequently have significant turnover in management folks as well
as are bought out, merge or change ownership status i.e. going
private or go public.  In such occurrences ISP Policy or knowledge
thereof frequently changes and many times dramatically.  As such,
continuity is lost or interpreted dramatically leaving ISP's actual
customers at risk unnecessarily.

> Personally, if we were
> to codify it, then, the only codification I would accept would be
> "on customer request".

  I would agree this would be ONE way or addressing the issue.
But given my above, perhaps not the best or necessary way..

>
>
> > Also agreed here.  Still under what criterion such IDR assignments
> > are made needs to be delineated...
> >
> Why?  Why not leave it up to the ISP and customer to deterine within
> the constraints of the existing policy?

 No reason, as long as that policy is sufficiently delineated...

>
>
> [snip] increasing SOHO users needing multiple space / possibly /56
>
> > Also agreed here.  But it should be exacting as to form/language
> > so that the policy is easily understood and far less subject to
> > interpretation.
> >
> I think that clarification would be good, but, I don't think that
> codification is necessary or desirable at this time.

It's probably not desirable true, but I would say it is or is nearly
necessary.

> I think leaving
> the decision between the LIR and end-site is the prudent approach right
> now.

  Having this decision as far down as possible is my personal preference
as well.  I am not arguing that.  I do however believe a need to have some
well defined guidelines and/or parameters contained and codified as
part of the policy yet flexible, which is difficult to do at times and
as a function of language, is and has been necessary for reasons
or continuity and broad understanding.

>
>
> I agree that we should do what we can to make sure LIRs and end-sites
> know what the policy allows and what options are available within the
> policy.

 Good.  But this *May* not be all that is needed.  Recommendations
as to provide for what not to do may also be necessary, and I believe
is given human nature.

>
>
> Owen
>
> --
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2       Type: application/pgp-signature
>               Encoding: 7bit

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827