[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Glenn Wiltse]

   IPv4 does have some fairly specific criteria for obtaining ip
assignments driectly from ARIN. Many of these critiera are based on the
realitive scarcity of IPv4 address space. The term utilization
rate is used, and basicly describes some percentage of total ip
address space used. You must have a imediate need for 25% utilization
and expect 50% utilization within a year of the assignment, 80% before 
you can get more, etc...

   IPv6 address space is not scarce, in fact right now in the ARIN region 
it seems we are having trouble getting people interested in using it. 
Typicaly utilization rates for IPv6 are spoken of in terms of the number 
of /48s that are assigned, not in terms of IP addresses or even in terms 
of /64s used.

   I personaly think it's somewhat futile to try and duplicate the general 
IPv4 scheem of things, in hopes that it will suit the needs of IPv6 
policy. In general we need to get away from the idea that IPv6 is somehow 
scarce. More specificly I don't think orginizations with PI IPv6 needs 
should be forced  into a realtively small amount of IPv6 space simply 
because they are not a "ISP". Especially when many large orginizations 
with PI needs, quite possibly have a greater real need for space then many 
small ISPs do.

   When we are using words like 'site' we would be wise not just ignore the 
fact that the word typicaly is used to refer to a physical location and is 
not somehow synonymous with 'user' or 'orginzation'.

   Oh, and no offense to the people who work at ARIN, but I'm not 
comfortable making vague policy that gives them nearly unlimited 
discretion in maters that should be realtively well defined in public 
policy. If I were comfortable giving ARIN staff that much discretion, I'd 
probably just stay home rather then attend ARIN Public Policy Meetings.

Glenn Wiltse

On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> Thus spake "Glenn Wiltse" <iggy at merit.edu>
>>    I find the re-working of this proposal as shown here, to be of little
>> or no value. It gives no explination of what criteria there would be for
>> obtaining more then a /48.
>
> In reviewing the IPv4 policy, I don't see much direction on what is required 
> to justify more than the minimum size for an initial end-user v4 allocation, 
> and what little there is doesn't seem to apply to v6.  The ARIN staff has a 
> lot of discretion in what "justify" means in v4 policies, so I don't see any 
> departure from existing practice in using the same word in v6 policy.  Also, 
> whereas justification is required in nearly all v4 assignments, it should be 
> fairly rare in v6 assignments since the minimum size is already very large.
>
> Also, there is existing policy (6.5.4.2) that explicitly calls out the lack 
> of formal criteria for giving end sites more than a /48.  The proposal under 
> discussion does no worse than what we already have.
>
>> In general as it relates to this and the earlier version, I object to
>> the use of the term 'large/complex end sites', since, the biggest need for
>> these types of direct assignments are for multi homed orginizations, not a
>> a 'end site'. I belive this policy should be addressing the need of the
>> 'large/complex orginzation' that doesn't want to have their IPv6 address
>> space directly tied to a ISP/LIR. In my mind, these should not be
>> considered 'end sites'.
>
> So if we changed the section heading (which has absolutely no effect on the 
> policy) from
>
>  6.5.8. Direct assignments to large/complex end sites
>
> to
>
>  6.5.8. Direct assignments to end-user organizations
>
> this objection would be moot?
>
> 6.2.9 defines "end sites" to be synonymous with "end-user organizations", 
> even though "site" implies a single physical location.  The idea that 
> end-user orgs often have private connectivity between locations is 
> consistently missed by the ISP folks here, hence the misleading term.
>
> The "large/complex" modifier is superfluous, but the qualifications are most 
> likely to be met by such orgs.
>
>>  Either way, it seems to me we aren't anywhere near consensus on
>> this issue, and I don't think this re-work gets us any closer.
>
> You're welcome to float your own proposal on what you think can achieve 
> consensus.  I'm sure Kevin will be happy to hear any constructive input you 
> have on his draft as well.
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
> CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
> K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin 
>
> !DSPAM:43e3d91912276650412592!
>
>