[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites - revised text

[Scott Leibrand]

Andrew,

This text doesn't seem to match my reading of your proposed revisions from
your recent message(s).  Can you give us a diff of the changes and
rationale for them?

Thanks,
Scott

On 04/03/06 at 7:07pm -0400, Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:

> Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites has
> been revised by the author. This proposal is open for discussion on this
> mailing list and will be on the agenda at the upcoming ARIN Public
> Policy Meeting.
>
> The current policy proposal text is provided below and is also available
> at: http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_4.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ### * ###
>
>
> Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
>
> Policy Proposal 2006-4, version 2
>
> Proposal type: new
>
> Policy term: permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Add new subsection to the NRPM:
>
> 6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites
>
>      6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
> organization must meet all of the following criteria:
>
>          1. not be an LIR;
>          2. be an end site;
>          3. be currently multihomed using IPv4;
>          4. have a direct assignment from ARIN of at least a IPv4 /19
> and can show the current utilization of 80% of an IPv4 /19 equivalent.
>
>      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 out of a reserved /44.
> Organizations with multiple ASNs may be assigned a prefix large enough
> to permit a /48 to be assigned to each ASN.
>
>      Direct Assignments shall be allocated from a separate super-block
> to allow for LIRs to filter.
>
>      6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites
>
>      Organization's assignment size may be increased to the next larger
> prefix (to a maximum of /44) when the organization demonstrates any of
> the following criteria:
>
>          1. 50% of the assigned /64 subnets are utilized
>          2. 50% of the /48 subnets are assigned and utilized to unique
> ASN assignments
>
> Organizations which request and can justify assignments larger than /44
> shall qualify as LIRs and must make application for an allocation under
> policies applicable to an LIR, except that they shall be exempted from
> the requirement to assign addresses to other organizations.
>
> Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site organization under
> Section 6.5.8
>
> Policy Rationale
>
> This policy is proposed as an alternative to the existing 2005-1 policy
> proposal. This policy is intended to be more conservative that the
> existing proposed 2005-1 policy. While this policy does allow PI
> assignments to end-sites, it limits the scope to current IPv4 holders
> with direct assignments. A more conservative policy is desirable as the
> first IPv6 PI policy.
>
> Current ARIN policy does not permit an end-site from obtaining a
> Provider Independent IPv6 address block directly from ARIN. There is
> currently no viable IPv6 multihoming method available for these
> end-sites. Shim6 & other methods have been proposed as a possible method
> to meet multihoming requirements. Today, no implementation or
> alternatives exist to ?traditional? IPv4 multihoming which announces
> unique address space from an ASN.
>
> The largest end-sites (corporations & content providers) have the
> greatest to gain and/or lose by not having an available method to
> multihome. While IPv6 provides for stateless auto configuration for end
> hosts, no new methods for renumbering the infrastructure are available.
> The cost and complexity of renumbering these large organizations makes
> it essential to provide stable address resources which are not assigned
> from a LIR.
>
> The lack of an end-site assignment policy is currently preventing the
> real planning and deployment of IPv6 networks in these organizations.
>
> Other policy proposals (2005-1) addressing this issue have been
> presented at the ARIN 15 & 16 meetings. This policy proposal attempts to
> address the issues that were raised on the ppml mailing list and at the
> public policy meetings for 2005-1.
>
> Specifically, the main issue surrounding the creation of consensus on
> this policy appears to be the criteria for which end-sites should be
> able to obtain an endsite assignment. Concerns have been raised about
> the creation of a new IPv6 ?swamp? by having a policy that is too
> lenient. This issue is addressed in the policy by limiting the endsite
> assignments to current organizations with a modest IPv4 assignment.
>
> The assignment of IPv4 resources is orthogonal to the assignment of IPv6
> addresses. However, the use of existing IPv4 assignments and ARIN
> membership are postulated as an appropriate regulator for the initial
> assignments under an IPv6 endsite policy. It is reasonable to consider
> changes to the membership and IPv4 assignment requirements in the
> future. This review should be conducted after the endsite assignment
> policy has been in place long enough to understand the demand for
> endsite IPv6 assignments and the development of IPv6 networks have matured.
>
> This policy proposal does not attempt to address the assignment needs
> for endsites which currently do not have IPv4 assignments.
>
> Timetable for implementation: within 90 days of approval by the BoT
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>