[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Recommended v6 aggregation practices

[william(at)elan.net]

Question:  How do you expect ->ARIN<- to implement this?

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-1.0
>
> Policy Proposal Name: Recommended v6 aggregation practices
> Author
> name: Owen DeLong
> email: owen at delong.com
> telephone: 408-921-6984
> organization: DeLong Consulting
> Proposal Version: 1.0
> Submission Date: 28 April, 2006
> Proposal type: new
> Policy term: permanent
> Policy statement:
>
> Add section 6.3.9 to NRPM as follows:
>
> 6.3.9 Recommended Practices to Maximize Aggregation
> 	6.3.9.1
> 		Whenever feasible, an organization should make best possible
> 		use of provider assigned space.
>
> 	6.3.9.2
> 		Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, no ASN should
> 		originate more than a single v6 aggregate prefix. Sparse allocation
> 		practices should prevent the need for growth-induced additional
> 		prefixes in most cases. Non-ISP organizations expanding beyond their
> 		reservation should renumber into the larger block if at all possible.
>
> 	6.3.9.3
> 		In the case of merger or acquisition resulting in a combination
> 		of multiple autonomous systems into a single topology and/or
> 		routing policy, the organization should strive to either combine
> 		the networks into one of the existing prefixes, or, obtain a
> 		new larger prefix and renumber.  A grace period of up to 3 years
> 		should be allowed for this purpose.
>
> Rationale:
>
> 	A number of the concerns raised over proposal 2005-1 seem to center
> 	around the possibility of routing table growth due to further deaggregation
> 	and other forms of v4-like table bloat resulting from PI space.
>
> 	This proposal is an attempt to reduce and/or mitigate those issues
> 	to some extent.  I have no illusion that this is a panacea, and, I
> 	remain convinced that the only truly viable solution is to develop
> 	a routing process for IDR which does not use the End System Identifier
> 	as the Routing Locator.
>
> 	I also remain uncomfortable with the idea of ARIN getting involved
> 	in routing policy.  I think this is the purview of the ISPs exchanging
> 	the routes in question.  However, I think these recommendations are
> 	a reasonable compromise towards a pragmatic attempt to address the
> 	existing situation until something better can be achieved.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediately upon BoT Approval
> Meeting presenter: Owen DeLong
>
> END OF TEMPLATE