[ppml] Proposed Policy: MicroAllocations for Internal Infrastructure

Louis Lee louie at equinix.com
Tue Feb 14 04:01:23 EST 2006

First off, my compliments to the authors of the policy
proposal for a very thorough job of explaining the
rationale of the proposal.  I may have some questions
on that later.

You've written in 6.10.3: (full text of 6.10.3 at the
> Internal infrastructure allocations MUST NOT be
> routed on global Internet.

While this is very well intentioned, we already have
precedence in which language regarding whether a given
assignment can or cannot be routed on the global Internet
was removed from a policy previously adopted.  Aside from
the argument of whether "internal infrastructure" outside
a NAT'ed firewall is considered part of the global Internet,
ARIN policies do not dictate or imply routability.

I understand from your proposal that if the micro-allocation
that is given under 6.10.3 happens to be announced to peers
and upstreams, it becomes an annoyance...and at worse, a
network security / stability issue.  In the previous policy
to which I was referring, if that micro-allocation for IXPs
was announced to peers & transits, it would actually impact
operation directly by causing routing issues due to path
selection algorithm.  And in that case, the language
restricting routability was still removed.

(The closest that ARIN policy has to suggesting routability
is the reference to RFC1918 space in 4.3.5: Non-connected

On a different point for consideration, if we are to
continue to differentiate between "allocations" and
"assignments", then the text should reflect it.  We all
understand that "micro-allocation" is a misnomer, and
ARIN Registration Services has been making *assignments*
on IP requests made under the micro-allocation policy.  I
do not fault you for this at all since the current text
of the micro-allocation has the same ambiguity.  This may
just be a good opportunity to clarify the matter.

The term "micro-allocation" should probably remain unaltered,
however, due to the fact that "micro-assignment" has already
taken to mean a separate policy.  I don't want to create
*more* confusion! :)

At present, I have not decided whether I support this
proposal or not.  It seems to have merit, and it deserves
attention & discussion.

Louis Lee
Sr. Network Architect
New Service Development
Equinix, Inc.
louie at equinix.com
desk: 408/360-5253
main: 650/513-7000

-----Original Message-----
From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net] 
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 7:17 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Proposed Policy: MicroAllocations for Internal


6.10.3 Micro-allocation for internal infrastructure 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

Internal infrastructure allocations MUST be allocated from specific
blocks reserved only for this purpose.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list