[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines - version 3

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Fri Aug 24 11:07:01 EDT 2007


In a message written on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 10:40:58AM -0400, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> To me, the rewrite seems contradictory to 6.5.2.1 Subsequent allocation
> criteria. If we say that ARIN will not review allocations of a /48 or
> smaller, how can staff review a subsequent request, when they have to
> confirm utilization to a /56?

I don't see the conflict your seeing.  The point is that ARIN will
not look inside the allocations to end users.  So if an ISP assigns
a /48 to "Dan Alexander" ARIN will say "that's 256 /56's assigned."
What ARIN won't do is say, "hey, isn't Dan only using a single /64,
shouldn't you, Mr ISP have given him a /56 (or any other size)?"

> I've never been a big fan of section 6.5.4.1 Assignment Address space
> size. It should be up to the LIR/ISP to make those judgement calls as to
> the needs of itself and its customer. We don't try to put these
> guidelines into IPv4. Allocation practices are based on the criteria to
> get more space. If IPv6 subsequent allocations are based on the
> utilization of /56 units, then that will drive the allocation
> guidelines. 

To say we don't put these guidelines into IPv4 is totally wrong.
The guideline is different, but it's far more strict and it puts
ARIN into the ISP's business.  Section 4.2.3 deals with reassigning
space to customers: http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four23

In particular, 4.2.3.1 requires an ISP to get a justification from
their customer for every block assigned, and 4.2.3.4.1 requires
that the ISP show /each and every/ customer is using at least 80%
of their space.

When asking for new space, ARIN will absolutely ask for the
justification provided by your customers, and look at the utilization
inside customer blocks, for IPv4.

More to the point, if what you desire is that the LIR/ISP can make
the judgement calls, that's exactly what this policy does.  It says,
"Mr ISP, make any judgement call you want in the range of /48-/128.
ARIN will never second guess your decision, nor will ARIN ever ask
for the details of why you made your decision."

> I will concede that many LIR/ISP will never need a second allocation, so
> they are looking for some direction as to which way to go. It however,
> seems like an odd argument, because if they are never going to need
> another allocation, what does it matter how they distribute the
> allocation they've been given?

I totally disagree that most will never need a second allocation.
In the ARIN region most ISP's have requested a /32 so far.  At an
HD-Ratio of 0.94 that gives them a little over 33,000 customers at
a /48.  The primary reason is many ISP's have received their current
allocations for test networks and/or initial deployments, and not
attempted to size to handle their entire customer base should IPv6
take off.  [Note, that in and of it self doesn't meet with the Sprit of
IPv6 allocation guidelines.]

I believe there are at least 10, and perhaps closer to 100 ISP's
who have at least that many customers in the US.  There may be more.
Indeed, outside the US we see /19's being assigned by RIPE to FT
and DT; so it's likely some of the people who have /32's today will
need more space in the future.

I would like ARIN staff to track and report on subsequent requests,
but I firmly believe we will have multiple requests for additional
space processed in the next 5 years.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070824/32441628/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list