[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites

[Scott Leibrand]

Restatement for the record (nothing new here):

I support this policy proposal, though I prefer the latest revision of
2005-1 because IMO it has better conditions in 6.5.8.1.  I would ideally
prefer a hybrid proposal using 2005-1's 6.5.8.1 wording and 2006-4's
6.5.8.2 and 6.5.8.3 wording.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Member Services" <memsvcs at arin.net>
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for 
EndSites


On February 16, 2006, the ARIN Advisory Council concluded its review of
'IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites' and accepted it as a formal
policy proposal for discussion by the community. This proposal is
designated Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End
Sites. The proposal text is below and can be found at:

http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_4.html

All persons in the community are encouraged to discuss Policy Proposal
2006-4 in the weeks leading to the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in
Montreal scheduled for April 10-11, 2006. Both the discussion on the
Public Policy Mailing List and at the Public Policy Meeting will be used
to determine the community consensus regarding this policy proposal.

The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html

ARIN's Policy Proposal Archive can be found at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


### * ###


Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites

Author: Andrew Dul

Proposal type: new

Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:

Add new subsection to the NRPM:

6.5.8. Direct assignments to end sites

       6.5.8.1. To qualify for a direct end site assignment, an
organization must meet all of the following criteria:

       1. not be an LIR;
       2. be an end site;
       3. be currently multihomed using IPv4;
       4. have a direct assignment from ARIN of at least a IPv4 /19 and
can show the current utilization of 80% of an IPv4 /19 equivalent.

       6.5.8.2. Direct assignment size to end sites

       Organizations that meet the direct end site assignment criteria
are eligible to receive a direct assignment of /48 out of a reserved
/44.  Direct Assignments shall be allocated from a separate super-block
to allow for LIRs to filter.

       6.5.8.3. Subsequent direct assignments to end sites

       Organizations assignment size may be increased by 1 bit (to a
maximum of /44) when they demonstrate the active usage of 50% of the
assigned /64 subnets.

       Only one direct assignment may be made to an end site
organization under Section 6.5.8.

       Organizations which can demonstrate active usage of more than 50%
of /64 networks from a /44 assignment shall qualify for an additional
allocation as an LIR.

Rationale:

This policy is proposed as an alternative to the existing 2005-1 policy
proposal.  This policy is intended to be more conservative that the
existing proposed 2005-1 policy.  While this policy does allow PI
assignments to end-sites, it limits the scope to current IPv4 holders
with direct assignments.  A more conservative policy is desirable as the
first IPv6 PI policy.

Current ARIN policy does not permit an end-site from obtaining a
Provider Independent IPv6 address block directly from ARIN.  There is
currently no viable IPv6 multihoming method available for these
end-sites.  Shim6 & other methods have been proposed as a possible
method to meet multihoming requirements.  Today, no implementation or
alternatives exist to “traditional” IPv4 multihoming which announces
unique address space from an ASN.

The largest end-sites (corporations & content providers) have the
greatest to gain and/or lose by not having an available method to
multihome.  While IPv6 provides for stateless auto configuration for end
hosts, no new methods for renumbering the infrastructure are available.
  The cost and complexity of renumbering these large organizations makes
it essential to provide stable address resources which are not assigned
from a LIR.

The lack of an end-site assignment policy is currently preventing the
real planning and deployment of IPv6 networks in these organizations.

Other policy proposals (2005-1) addressing this issue have been
presented at the ARIN 15 & 16 meetings.  This policy proposal attempts
to address the issues that were raised on the ppml mailing list and at
the public policy meetings for 2005-1.

Specifically, the main issue surrounding the creation of consensus on
this policy appears to be the criteria for which end-sites should be
able to obtain an endsite assignment.  Concerns have been raised about
the creation of a new IPv6 “swamp” by having a policy that is too
lenient.  This issue is addressed in the policy by limiting the endsite
assignments to current organizations with a modest IPv4 assignment.

The assignment of IPv4 resources is orthogonal to the assignment of IPv6
addresses.  However, the use of existing IPv4 assignments and ARIN
membership are postulated as an appropriate regulator for the initial
assignments under an IPv6 endsite policy.  It is reasonable to consider
changes to the membership and IPv4 assignment requirements in the
future.  This review should be conducted after the endsite assignment
policy has been in place long enough to understand the demand for
endsite IPv6 assignments and the development of IPv6 networks have matured.

This policy proposal does not attempt to address the assignment needs
for endsites which currently do not have IPv4 assignments.

Timetable for implementation: within 90 days of approval by the BoT




_______________________________________________
PPML mailing list
PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml