[ppml] Proposed Policy: MicroAllocations for Internal Infrastructure
Jason Schiller (email@example.com)
jason.schiller at mci.com
Wed Feb 15 03:01:11 EST 2006
Thank you very much for your comments!
Your point about ARIN policies not dictating or implying routability is
well taken, and I suspect that language will need to be removed or changed
to something like "... should NOT be routed on global Internet."
What I was trying to accomplish with this sentence, was to prevent this
policy from 1. being used to get PI space, and 2. making sure that this
policy does not contribute to polluting the global IPv6 routing table.
Does any one have any advice on some better language? Or is the policy
still strong enough with out that sentence?
As for allocation and assignment, I am fine with changing the word, but
I guess I am a little confused about the official ARIN definition of
allocation and assignment.
I thought allocation is something ARIN does to LIRs (or end-sites), and
assignment is something LIRs do to end-sites. If this is wrong, then I
probably have the wrong words in the policy, and will be happy to change
this. Can someone set this straight?
Jason Schiller (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com
The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Louis Lee wrote:
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:01:23 -0800
> From: Louis Lee <louie at equinix.com>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: MicroAllocations for Internal
> 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.
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML