[ppml] PPML Digest, Vol 10, Issue 10

[Bill Van Emburg]

I am in favor of 2005-1.  I think that this is the best policy, and the 
simplest that will work.

I think 2006-4 is a little bit more restrictive in terms of receiving an 
initial allocation, and I think that is not a great idea.  However, it's 
better than the current "use 200 networks" requirement (or whatever that 
number is...).

I do not support 2005-8, regardless of whether Scott's interpretation or 
Lee's interpretation is correct.  I don't think we need to switch to /56 
as default at this time, and I don't think IPv6 end users should be 
restricted to getting their IPs from an LIR.

Most importantly, I think we need to make it very explicit that there is 
no "permanent" IPv6 assignment.  ARIN *must* retain the right to reclaim 
IPv6 addresses at a later date, if the user can not justify it under the 
then-current policy.  I also think that allocations should be required 
to be returned to ARIN or re-justified when another organization takes 
over the IP space.  IPs are not an asset to be bought and sold 
privately; they are a public trust.

-Bill Van Emburg
Quadrix Solutions, Inc.

> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 14:00:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com>
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Summary of IPv6 assignment proposals
> To: "Howard, W. Lee" <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Message-ID:
> 	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0604061356160.2335 at sleibrand-ibm.acs.internap.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Howard,
> 
> As I've stated earlier, I support 2005-1 as my first choice.  I would also
> support 2006-4 if 2005-1 doesn't achieve consensus.
> 
> I disagree with your characterization of 2005-8.  As I read it, 2005-8 is
> orthogonal to PI proposals, and simply "is intended to make the default
> assignment size a /56 in the vast number of cases where a /48 seems
> profligate."  As such, I support 2005-8 *in addition to* (not instead of)
> 2005-1 or 2006-4.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On 04/06/06 at 1:44pm -0400, Howard, W. Lee <Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.c...:
> 
>> According to http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html,
>> there
>> are three proposals related to IPv6 assignments for non-LIRs which are
>> currently under consideration.  In order to adopt a policy, we have to
>> have
>> consensus.  Roughly:
>>
>> Proposal 2005-1 would say: if you're not an IPv6 LIR, and qualify for an
>> IPv4
>> direct assignment, you can have a /48 (or larger, if needed).
>>
>> Proposal 2005-8 would say: if you're not an LIR, get your IPv6 from your
>> LIR
>> (and recommendations on what the LIR should assign).
>>
>> Proposal 2006-4 would say: if you're not an LIR, and you're multihomed,
>> and
>> have used 90% of a directly-assigned IPv4 /19, you can have a /48.  If
>> you
>> use 50% of your /64s or /48s, you can have then next bit.  If you need
>> more
>> than a /44, you're automatically an LIR.
>>
>> The question for you, as a member of the public [1], is which of these
>> proposals ARIN should adopt, if any.  If you like the direction of a
>> proposal,
>> but don't like some part of it, consider whether your concern means you
>> withhold support, or if it should be adopted and modified later.  Then,
>> if
>> you haven't already said it, email your response to this list, or to the
>> AC
>> member of your choice [2], or at least speak up at the Public Policy
>> Meeting [3].  The ARIN Advisory Council will judge consensus based on
>> list
>> activity and comments at the meeting.
>>
>>
>> This message is not sponsored by ARIN.  I just can't tell who is in
>> favor of what.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>
>> [1] You don't have to be a member of ARIN.
>> [2] Email addresses at http://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html
>> [3] Including remote particpation, registration required,
>> http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVII/webcast.html
>> _______________________________________________