[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure - to be revised

[Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)]

Matt,

Let me try to clarify the question that I think Stacy is trying to put
forward  (Stacy please correct me if I'm wrong).

Sections 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 are an attempt divide up the existing policy
into discrete sections in order to clarify things.  The goal here was to
simply seperate out the text of the existing policy into stuff that
applies to all micro-allocations, or stuff that applies only to
1. public exchange points, 2. core DNS servers, or 3. IANA or RIR
allocations. 

Assume for a moment that sections 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 only make editorial
changes and do not change the policy.

Assume this proposal is replaced with two seperarte proposals.  The first
proposal simply makes editorial changes (but no policy changes) to
organize, clarify, and divide up the text into sections.

The second proposal would be as follows:

--------
Organizations that currently hold IPv6 allocations may apply for a
micro-allocation for internal infrastructure. Applicant must provide
justification indicating why a separate non-routed block is required. 
Justification must include why a sub-allocation of currently held IP space
cannot be utilized.

Internal infrastructure allocations MUST NOT be routed on global Internet.

Internal infrastructure allocations MUST be allocated from specific blocks
reserved only for this purpose. 
--------

Assume the text above is contained in such a way as it is clear that this
text would only apply to micro-allocations for internal infrastructure.

This proposal would not attempt to modify the existing micro-allocation
policies.  In other words the text about "MUST NOT be routed"  would only
apply to micro-allocations for internal infrastructure.

The questions is would the second proposal as defined above be a move in
the right direction?  In other words would people support this proposal?


The question I would like to ask is if there would be more or less support
for the following:

1. complete removal of the "MUST NOT be routed" sentence

2. rewrite of "MUST NOT be routed" to "It is intended that internal
infrastructure allocations are not routed on the global Internet."

3. keeping the "MUST NOT be routed" sentence as is

4. Adding text indicating that if the internal infrastructure allocation
is routed on the global Internet then ARIN can (or will) reclaim the
space.

___Jason 


==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Matthew Petach wrote:

> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:42:12 -0700
> From: Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com>
> To: Stacy Taylor <ipgoddess at gmail.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for
>     Internal Infrastructure - to be revised
> 
> On 4/20/06, Stacy Taylor <ipgoddess at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone!
> > Would the omission of the 6.10.1 and 6.10.2, sections, (largely
> > editorial sections to begin with), from this policy proposal be
> > classified as clarification, or a step in that direction?
> > 6.10.3 seems to me to be clear on its own.
> > Thanks!
> > /Stacy
> 
> 
> The challenge with simply omitting 6.10.2 is that 6.10.3 specifies
> the micro-allocation  MUST NOT be routed on the  global  internet.
> 
> That language is too restrictive to cover the case of microallocations
> for core DNS servers, which are most useful when they are indeed
> routed on the global internet, and not filtered.
> 
> Matt
> 
> On 4/14/06, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> > > fwiw, after discussion with jason, i would support a more simple,
> > direct,
> > > and clear proposal to the same end.
> > >
> > > randy
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>