[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
sleibrand at internap.com
Mon Feb 13 09:13:58 EST 2006
I support this policy proposal, though I prefer the latest revision of
2005-1 because IMO it has better conditions in 126.96.36.199. I would ideally
prefer a hybrid proposal using 2005-1's 188.8.131.52 wording and Andrew's
184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 wording.
On 02/10/06 at 10:26am -0500, Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN received the following proposed policy. In accordance with the ARIN
> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
> posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List and being placed on ARIN's
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal and within ten
> working days may decide to:
> 1) Support the proposal as is,
> 2) Work with the author to clarify, divide or combine one or more
> policy proposals, or
> 3) Not support the policy proposal.
> If the AC supports the proposal or reaches an agreement to work with the
> author, then the proposal will be posted as a formal policy proposal to
> the Public Policy Mailing List and it will be presented at the Public
> Policy Meeting. If the AC does not support the proposal, then the author
> may elect to use the petition process to advance the proposal. If the
> author elects not to petition or the petition fails, then the proposed
> policy will be considered closed.
> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> ### * ###
> Policy Proposal Name: 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
> 18.104.22.168. 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.
> 22.214.171.124. 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.
> 126.96.36.199. Subse quent 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.
> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML