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

[Stacy Taylor]

Thank you, Jason.  That is indeed what I was asking.

On 4/21/06, Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net) <jason.schiller at mci.com> wrote:
> 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
> > >
> >
>
>