[ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
lea.roberts at stanford.edu
Sat Mar 11 17:08:19 EST 2006
thanks for the comment, Terry!
I certainly agree with you... and that's one reason why I would like to
see the option for multiple subnet assignments other than /48! /Lea
On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> The proposal is fine.
> But I am actually hard pressed to imagine a single entity site that will
> have only a single local subnet under an IP-v6 architecture. I tend to
> believe that IP-v6 architectures will be very different from our
> traditional IP-v4 concepts.
> My power, entertain, City, and communications company will probably
> allocate me one each from there individual spaces but I still think I
> will several of my own as I do today.
> Take care
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lea Roberts [mailto:lea.roberts at stanford.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:34 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] a modified proposal 2005-8
> was just sent in to ARIN... for your additional reading pleasure. /Lea
> Policy Proposal 2005-8, version 2:
> Proposal to amend ARIN IPv6 assignment and utilisation requirement
> This proposal would amend the IPv6 address allocation policies (ARIN's
> NRPM, section 6) regarding the definition of the default size of End
> Site assignments and the threshold value for End Site allocation
> efficiency, no longer assuming the fixed values for End Site
> assignments established by RFC3177. Many references to "/48" will
> need to be replaced by "End Site assignment".
> for example, section 184.108.40.206 should be replaced as follows:
> 220.127.116.11. Assignment address space size
> End Users are assigned an End Site assignment from their LIR or
> ISP. The exact size of the assignment is a local decision for the
> LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (when only one
> subnet is anticipated for the End Site) up to the normal maximum
> of /48, except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger
> assignment can be justified.
> The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only
> - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
> - /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
> over the next 5 years.
> - /48 for larger sites
> For end sites to whom DNS will be delegated, the LIR/ISP should
> consider making an assignment on a nibble (4-bit) boundary to allow
> to simplify reverse lookup delegation.
> RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP
> actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the
> detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4,
> except for the cases described in Section 6.4.4 and for the
> purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.
> also, section 6.9 will need to be replaced:
> 6.9. IPv6 Reassignments policy
> The size of IPv6 address assignments to End Sites is to be
> determined by the ISP/LIR.
> ISPs and LIRs may choose whether to make changes to their
> procedures for assigning address blocks to End Sites. The threshold
> End Site allocation efficiency level is between 20% to 50% for most
> ISPs and LIRs when based on a 0.94 HD Ratio. ISPs and LIRs will
> need to operate address plans according to this target level of End
> Site allocation efficiency.
> there's a need to change ARIN NRPM IPv6 Utilization:
> The ARIN NRPM Section 6.7 will be amended so its IPv6 allocation
> utilization criteria will reflect the use of a /56 as the unit
> quantity in the calculation of the ISP or LIR's end site allocation
> The current IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (section 6
> of ARIN's NRPM) indicates that end sites should be allocated a /48 as
> a uniform allocation unit if using more than one host or one subnet.
> This proposal alters the existing policy regarding LIR and ISP
> assignments to End Sites to allow the unit of assignment to be an LIR
> or ISP decision.
> In assessing the address utilization efficiency for ISPs or LIRs, the
> definition of an End Site for the purposes of the calculation of ISP
> or LIR End Site allocation efficiency, is to be made according to a /56
> This measure, if undertaken generally by all RIRs, in conjunction with
> the further measures undertaken by the addressing community regarding
> increasing the HD ratio to 0.94, would increase the anticipated useful
> lifetime of IPv6 to encompass a period in excess of 100 years, in
> which case no further allocation policy changes would be anticipated.
> A more detailed rationale is available in Geoff Huston's presentation on
> the subject, at RIPE 50, which can be found at:
> Appendix A. References
> This material is not formally part of the Policy Proposal. It is
> here for informational purposes.
> 1. The IPv6 Address Plan - Geoff Huston
> 2. Internet Draft: Issues Related to the Management of IPv6 Address
> Space -
> Thomas Narten
> [unfortunately, the ID expired, so use the URL:
> 3. Internet Draft: IPv6 Address Allocation to End Sites - Thomas Narten,
> Geoff Huston & Lea Roberts
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML