[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping

Azinger, Marla marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com
Wed Aug 22 17:04:56 EDT 2007

Here are my two cents on this one:

- I cant support this until the things that are to be taken out have a place to go like the creation of NPOG (Number Policy Operational Guidelines).

-Change I.  Make this a separate proposal due to it removing a /48 as a specification.  In fact take it out of this proposal and let the other proposal(Definition of known ISP and changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria) that was submitted address this issue.
-Change H.  I don't support removing this.  I suggest relocating it to because the wording is more clarifying in an example manner than what is currently written in already.

Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Member Services
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:23 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping

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:

Mailing list subscription information can be found at:


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, replace the existing statement with the new

        "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

        "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, add the following sentence to the end of the first

        "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, add a sentence between the two existing sentences:

        "Justification will be determined based on the .94 HD-Ratio

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

Change O:

    Remove section 6.8.  Update all subsequent sections to have new
    section numbers (6.[n-1]).


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

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

Change I:

    Proposal 2005-8 amended section to allow /56 and /64
    allocations, but section 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

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.

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