[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping - version 2.0
Scott Leibrand
sleibrand at internap.com
Fri Aug 31 15:40:43 EDT 2007
Thanks for the explanation.
I support this proposal, as a good and useful cleanup. The only thing
that seems even remotely controversial to me would be the clarifications
that your 200 assignments to get an LIR /32 need to be to "other
organizations". I think this is what was originally intended by the LIR
/32 policy, and will close a loophole used by some organizations to get
a /32 when they probably should have gotten IPv6 PI space instead.
-Scott
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> It's also probably not obvious what happened here.
>
> The AC is working with staff on making the NRPM more clear; the
> intention is to do some minor editing that does not change any
> policy. Things like improved defintions, better cross references,
> etc. The AC felt that my original proposal had both policy changes
> and these sorts of edits in it.
>
> The edits have been removed and put in the hopper with the larger
> editing project which will appear in the future. What's left below
> are the changes the AC belived are policy changes.
>
> Back to my original purpose. I actually don't want to change policy
> with this cleanup, however there are some places where the policy
> is ambiguous, or worse not self consisent. In the cases below the
> "fix" is to make policy, to make it consistent and clear. I have
> picked what I believe are the most straightforward ways of making
> the policy clear and consisent however since the isse has been
> brought up I suspect people will want to debate the points in more
> detail, and that's fine.
>
> To reduce confusion, I've left the change letters the same as before;
> however there are only now four in this policy.
>
> In a message written on Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:18:19AM -0400, Member Services wrote:
>
>> The author submitted a revised version of their proposal.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>> 1. Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping
>> 2. Author
>> 1. name: Leo Bicknell
>> 2. email: bicknell at ufp.org
>> 3. telephone: 901 853 9404
>> 4. organization: Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>> 3. Proposal Version: 2.0
>> 4. Submission Date: 8/29/2007
>> 5. Proposal type: modify
>> 6. Policy term: permanent
>> 7. Policy statement:
>>
>> Change I:
>>
>> In section 6.5.1.1.d, replace the existing statement with the new
>> statement:
>>
>> "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
>> making at least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations
>> within 5 years."
>>
>> Change J:
>>
>> Remove section 6.5.3 entirely. Update all subsequent sections to
>> have new section numbers (6.5.[n-1]).
>>
>> Replace part of the text as (new) section 6.5.4.4:
>>
>> "All /56 and larger assignments to end sites are required to be
>> registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in
>> such a way that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the
>> HD-Ratio when a subsequent allocation becomes necessary."
>>
>> Change K:
>>
>> Section 6.5.8.2, add the following sentence to the end of the first
>> paragraph:
>>
>> "An HD-Ratio of .94 must be met for all assignments larger than
>> a /48."
>>
>> Add to the end of the second paragraph:
>>
>> "This reservation may be assigned to other organizations
>> later, at ARIN's discretion."
>>
>> Change L:
>>
>> Section 6.5.8.3, add a sentence between the two existing sentences:
>>
>> "Justification will be determined based on the .94 HD-Ratio
>> metric."
>>
>> 8. Rationale:
>>
>> When the IPv6 policy was passed, it was considered to be an "interim"
>> policy, and it was intended to be similar in all 5 RIR's. Since that
>> time it has become clear the policy is no longer interim (and proposal
>> 2007-4 was passed to change just that) and it has also been modified
>> separately in the different RIR's.
>>
>> It was brought to the ARIN AC's attention that there were a number of
>> problems with "Section 6" of the NRPM as a result of this legacy:
>>
>> * The policy contained a large number of items that were not policy.
>> * The policy contained a few items that were self contradictory.
>> * The added text was redundant in some cases with existing text.
>> * The policy was overly vague in a few areas, leaving ARIN staff to
>> have to make interpretations of what the policy intended.
>> * Policy changes made since the initial IPv6 policy was adopted have
>> not always updated all of the relevant sections due to the complexity
>> of section 6.
>>
>> The intent of these changes is not to change any existing policy, but
>> rather to remove all non-policy items, and update any ambiguous items
>> with the way that ARIN staff is currently interprets the policy.
>>
>> Change I:
>>
>> Proposal 2005-8 amended section 6.5.4.1 to allow /56 and /64
>> allocations, but section 6.5.1.1.d was never updated to match
>> the change. It is believed the intent of the policy, and ARIN
>> staff's current interpretation of the policy match the updated
>> text.
>>
>> Change J:
>>
>> The first part is not policy, and incorrectly states there is no
>> policy as section 6.5.4 has the policy in it. Take the one useful
>> part and make it part of the 6.5.4 criteria.
>>
>> Change K:
>>
>> No metric is currently listed to justify a larger initial
>> assignment. It is believed ARIN staff is currently applying
>> the HD-Ratio similar to the ISP policy, this puts that in writing.
>>
>> Make it clear that the reservation may not exist in perpetuity.
>>
>> Change L:
>>
>> No metric is given to justify additional assignments. It is
>> believed that ARIN staff is currently applying the HD_Ratio
>> similar to the ISP policy, this puts that in writing.
>>
>> 9. Timetable for implementation: Immediate.
>> 10. Meeting presenter: Leo Bicknell
>>
>> END OF TEMPLATE
>>
>>
>> Member Services wrote:
>>
>>> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN
>>> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
>>> posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on
>>> ARIN's website.
>>>
>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next
>>> regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:
>>>
>>> 1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as written. If the
>>> AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal
>>> to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.
>>>
>>> 2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next
>>> regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC
>>> will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At
>>> their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal.
>>>
>>> 3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal,
>>> the AC will explain their decision. If a proposal is not accepted, then
>>> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their
>>> proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the petition fails,
>>> then the proposal will be closed.
>>>
>>> The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the
>>> names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
>>> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
>>> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
>>> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>>>
>>> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
>>> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
>>>
>>> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
>>> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Member Services
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>>
>>> ## * ##
>>>
>>>
>>> Policy Proposal Name: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping
>>>
>>> Author: Leo Bicknell
>>>
>>> Proposal Version: 1.0
>>>
>>> Submission Date: 8/17/2007
>>>
>>> Proposal type: modify
>>>
>>> Policy term: permanent
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Change A:
>>>
>>> Remove the text between the section 6 header and the section 6.1
>>> header. Remove section 6.1 entirely. Update all subsequent
>>> sections to have new section numbers (6.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Change B:
>>>
>>> Move the image in section 6.2 to section 2.
>>>
>>> Remove sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.6.
>>>
>>> Change C:
>>>
>>> Move section 6.2.7 to (new) section 2.8, subheading "IPv6".
>>>
>>> Create section 2.8, subheading "IPv4", containing the following text:
>>>
>>> In IPv4, utilization is the percentage of the address space
>>> allocated or assigned relative to the total address space.
>>>
>>> Change D:
>>>
>>> Move section 6.2.8 to (new) section 2.8.
>>> Move section 6.2.9 to (new) section 2.9.
>>>
>>> As this leaves section 6.2 empty, remove section 6.2. Update
>>> all subsequent sections to have new section numbers (6.[n-1]).
>>>
>>>
>>> Change E:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.3. Update all subsequent sections to have new
>>> section numbers (6.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Change F:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.4.1. Update all subsequent sections to have new
>>> section numbers (6.4.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Change G:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.4.2. Update all subsequent sections to have new
>>> section numbers (6.4.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Change H:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.4.4.
>>>
>>> Change I:
>>>
>>> In section 6.5.1.1.d, replace the existing statement with the new
>>> statement:
>>>
>>> "be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
>>> making at least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations
>>> within 5 years."
>>>
>>> Change J:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.5.3 entirely. Update all subsequent sections to
>>> have new section numbers (6.5.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Replace part of the text as (new) section 6.5.4.4:
>>>
>>> "All /56 and larger assignments to end sites are required to be
>>> registered either by the LIR or its subordinate ISPs in
>>> such a way that the RIR/NIR can properly evaluate the
>>> HD-Ratio when a subsequent allocation becomes necessary."
>>>
>>> Change K:
>>>
>>> Section 6.5.8.2, add the following sentence to the end of the first
>>> paragraph:
>>>
>>> "An HD-Ratio of .94 must be met for all assignments larger than
>>> a /48."
>>>
>>> Add to the end of the second paragraph:
>>>
>>> "This reservation may be assigned to other organizations
>>> later, at ARIN's discretion."
>>>
>>> Change L:
>>>
>>> Section 6.5.8.3, add a sentence between the two existing sentences:
>>>
>>> "Justification will be determined based on the .94 HD-Ratio
>>> metric."
>>>
>>> Change M:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.6. Update all subsequent sections to have new
>>> section numbers (6.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Change N:
>>>
>>> Change the title of section 6.7 from "Appendix A: HD-Ratio" to
>>> "HD-Ratio".
>>>
>>> Change O:
>>>
>>> Remove section 6.8. Update all subsequent sections to have new
>>> section numbers (6.[n-1]).
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>>
>>> When the IPv6 policy was passed, it was considered to be an "interim"
>>> policy, and it was intended to be similar in all 5 RIR's. Since that
>>> time it has become clear the policy is no longer interim (and proposal
>>> 2007-4 was passed to change just that) and it has also been modified
>>> separately in the different RIR's.
>>>
>>> It was brought to the ARIN AC's attention that there were a number of
>>> problems with "Section 6" of the NRPM as a result of this legacy:
>>>
>>> * The policy contained a large number of items that were not policy.
>>> * The policy contained a few items that were self contradictory.
>>> * The added text was redundant in some cases with existing text.
>>> * The policy was overly vague in a few areas, leaving ARIN staff to
>>> have to make interpretations of what the policy intended.
>>> * Policy changes made since the initial IPv6 policy was adopted have
>>> not always updated all of the relevant sections due to the complexity
>>> of section 6.
>>>
>>> The intent of these changes is not to change any existing policy, but
>>> rather to remove all non-policy items, and update any ambiguous items
>>> with the way that ARIN staff is currently interprets the policy.
>>>
>>> Change A:
>>>
>>> Not policy. Unnecessary. Confusing (policy is interim).
>>>
>>> Change B:
>>>
>>> Sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.6 are definitions that are already defined in
>>> section 2.1 to 2.7 Repeating them here is unnecessary. The picture
>>> is useful though, and should be moved to section 2 as part of the
>>> definitions.
>>>
>>> Change C:
>>>
>>> This is a definition item, and should be in the definition section.
>>> Also, the v4 versions should be defined at the same time.
>>>
>>> Change D:
>>>
>>> These are both definitions that should be in the definitions section.
>>>
>>> Change E:
>>>
>>> This is a manifesto, and is not address policy. If anything these
>>> belong is ARIN's mission statement.
>>>
>>> Change F:
>>>
>>> Not policy; covered by the RSA as a legal matter.
>>>
>>> Change G:
>>>
>>> Not policy. A darn good warning though ARIN should include with
>>> any other boilerplate when issuing address space.
>>>
>>> Change H:
>>>
>>> Not policy, and covered by actual policy statement 6.5.1.2.
>>>
>>> Change I:
>>>
>>> Proposal 2005-8 amended section 6.5.4.1 to allow /56 and /64
>>> allocations, but section 6.5.1.1.d was never updated to match
>>> the change. It is believed the intent of the policy, and ARIN
>>> staff's current interpretation of the policy match the updated
>>> text.
>>>
>>> Change J:
>>>
>>> The first part is not policy, and incorrectly states there is no
>>> policy as section 6.5.4 has the policy in it. Take the one useful
>>> part and make it part of the 6.5.4 criteria.
>>>
>>> Change K:
>>>
>>> No metric is currently listed to justify a larger initial
>>> assignment. It is believed ARIN staff is currently applying
>>> the HD-Ratio similar to the ISP policy, this puts that in writing.
>>>
>>> Make it clear that the reservation may not exist in perpetuity.
>>>
>>> Change L:
>>>
>>> No metric is given to justify additional assignments. It is
>>> believed that ARIN staff is currently applying the HD_Ratio
>>> similar to the ISP policy, this puts that in writing.
>>>
>>> Change M:
>>>
>>> References, while useful on the web page and in template instructions
>>> are not policy.
>>>
>>> Change N:
>>>
>>> It's not an appendix. It's not even at the end.
>>>
>>> Change O:
>>>
>>> The background information would be something nice to archive on the
>>> ARIN web site somewhere, but is not policy and should be removed from
>>> the policy manual.
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PPML
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
>>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list