[ppml] Policy Proposal: Definition of known ISP and changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria

[Brian Dickson]

Kevin Loch wrote:
>
> Did you read the proposal that was referenced?  It deletes language for
> "200 /48 assignments in 5 years" and replaces it with "200 customer
> assignments in 5 years".  That is a step in the right direction no?
>   
First, an observation:
The set of policies that affect allocations, initial and otherwise, and
assignments from allocations (in the case of PA space), need to be
considered as a whole.

This makes it a little, um, challenging, to modify individual elements,
in isolation.

Now, my comments related to the proposal.

I think keeping "5 years" is fine. Removing the size of the assignments
is good.

But, I would go much further. Anyone providing internet access,
regardless of financial motive, to an unrelated entity, should be
considered an {ISP|LIR}.

And, as such, should be able to request an initial allocation. The
request should include the number of current V4 assignments, and
requested/projected/known V6 assignments over one or more timeframes -
immediate need, 5 year, 10 year, "ever". And the minimum number of
assignments in any of the "now or 5 year" timeframe, should be very
small (e.g. 2).

Reasoning:
The ARIN region contains any number of entities, who may operate in such
a way as to offer services to unaffiliated entities.

Some of those may require sufficient redundancy as to need fully
independent multi-homing, by way of BGP. E.g. small, developing nations
with limited infrastructure.

The guiding principal for the DFZ is, "no deaggregation, please".
This means that anyone doing BGP, needs an ASN, and at minimum one PI block.
(I also believe that only one PI block should be announced into the DFZ
per ASN, but that's another issue.)

This means that, regardless of size, any entity acting as an ISP for any
other entity, which needs to be or intends to be multi-homed, *must* be
given a PI block.

The flip side is, that we should *strongly* discourage any entity which
will not be assigning space to unaffiliated entities, from requesting or
being given, PI space.

So, my specific suggestion is:
s/200 /2 /

(Or, open the floor to proposals for values of N, where currently N is
200. With supporting arguments, please, but keep it short.)

Brian Dickson

Footnote:
The *size* of the initial allocation  itself, is a topic for another day.
(I think /48 is okay, but would not object to allowing requests for PI
of smaller blocks, say, /64 or longer.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: briand.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070824/ab1ceb58/attachment.vcf>