[ppml] Proposed Policy: Changes to IPv6 initialallocationcriteria

[Davis, Terry L]

Jordi/Stephen/Andrew

As you consider your address allocation planning, consider that there
will be industry groups asking for allocations that will region-wide or
global for inter-industry communications that are not ISP's.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [mailto:jordi.palet at consulintel.es]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:10 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: Changes to IPv6
> initialallocationcriteria
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> My comments below, in-line.
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > De: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> > Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> > Fecha: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:29:54 -0500
> > Para: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>, ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: Changes to IPv6 initial
> allocationcriteria
> >
> > Thus spake "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> >>>  Policy statement:
> >>>
> >>>  Delete section 6.5.1.1 d. of NRPM
> >>>
> >>> d:  be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan
for
> >>> making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within
> >>> five
> >>> years.
> >>
> >> My main understanding of why this policy might be needed is that
> >> some feel that the 200 /48 assignments is an arbitrary requirement.
> >> Some feel that this type of requirement would encourage a smaller
> >> LIR to provide false information to ARIN in order to obtain PA
address
> >> space.
> >>
> >> If the problem is with the 200 /48 requirements, I would suggest
just
> >> striking the words "at least 200" from the policy rather than
removing
> >> the entire requirement.
> >
> > The requirement, as I understand it, is to prevent allocations to
"flash
> > in the pan" startups who have no track record or orgs who are not
really
> > LIRs from getting a routing table slot; the latter was a major
concern
> > before the PI policy was adopted (e.g. WTF did Cisco, IBM, et al
qualify
> > as LIRs and get /32s?).
> 
> This requirement comes from an historical perspective of the original
> policy
> developed jointly by APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC.
> 
> Any allocation may "flash in the pan", but this is another issue, and
> that's
> why we have recovery processes.
> 
> >
> > A lot of this hinges on the ARIN staff's interpretation of "have a
> > plan".  I would hope that any startup ISP with a reasonable business
> > model would be accepted as "having a plan", and virtually no ISP is
> > going to be economically viable without at least 200 customers.
There
> > may be some specialized orgs that cater to specific niches which
might
> > be under 200 users, but those would likely qualify under the "known
ISP"
> > category, or their customers may be large enough to get PI space now
> > anyways.
> 
> A problem frequently raised by several RIRs with different policy
> proposals
> is that how a RIR staff "interprets" wordings as "have a plan". A plan
may
> be good enough for them, but not for the community. It seems to me
that
> there is a subtle line here ...
> 
> I disagree in your vision that having less than 200 customers is not
> economically viable. There are many ISPs all around the world that
have
> just
> a dozen of "big" customers, enough the be on business. And if that ISP
is
> a
> new business, will not qualify as per the "known ISP" category.
> 
> >
> > The other thing is that a small ISP is most likely to start up as a
PA
> > customer of another ISP; asking them to accumulate N customers
before
> > getting their own routing table slot seems reasonable, though
there's
> > room for debate on what N should be.
> 
> I think a small or new ISP doesn't necessarily going to have just one
> upstream provider.
> 
> Even if has a single upstream, what about the cost of renumbering the
ISP
> and its customers if he decides to change the upstream or just add a
> second
> upstream in a second stage ?
> 
> How do you define that N is reasonable for 200 or any other number ?
> That's
> always absolutely subjective, and I don't think we do the right thing,
as
> a
> community, setting up policies that are subjective in their terms or
in
> their implementation by the RIR staff.
> 
> >
> > I'd like to see stats on how many ISPs have been _denied_ an
allocation
> > under the existing rules, and why.  I'd also be curious if ARIN's
> > counsel has any comments on the anti-trust implications mentioned in
the
> > rationale.  If neither of those turns up a motivation for change,
I'm
> > against this proposal by default on the grounds it's a solution in
> > search of a problem.
> >
> >> I do not think that small ISPs should use the PI address space
policy
> >> to a bootstrap to getting PA address space later.
> >
> > Agreed; I'd rather have LIRs lying about their customer counts to
get PA
> > space than have them using PI space, which is specifically intended
for
> > direct assignment to end users.
> >
> > S
> >
> > Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> > CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> > K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
> 
> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
> http://www.ipv6day.org
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged
or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml