[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria - revised text

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Basically my intend with this proposal is to support those organizations
> that aren't "knoww ISPs" (as required by section 6.5.1.1.d). This can fall
> into two categories (but may be there are others that I don't see right
> now):
> 1) An organization which want to provide IPv4 and IPv6 services.
>
> 2) An organization which only want to provide IPv6 services.
>
> In both cases, seems to me unnecessary to ask for a slow start with *only*
> IPv4 to be "known" or have a plan for 200/48 (there may be cases which a
> smaller number of customers and there is no need to force that 
> organization
> to use a single upstream and get allocated the address space from that
> upstream, being forced to stay with that upstream on order to avoid
> renumbering of its network and customer ones).

It's hardly "slow start" when we're giving every LIR a /32 to start with. 
That's a lot of addresses.

I also don't think that mere intent (even if documented) is sufficient 
grounds to give an org a globally-routable prefix.  If you wish to debate 
the 200 customer requirement, I'm sure many folks would be open to lowering 
it, but I cannot in any way support a policy change that allows anyone to 
get a /32 just because they buy a couple routers and sign up one or two 
customers.  To do so completely undermines the entire the allocation policy; 
we might as well stop asking for justification entirely and just hand out 
/32s to everyone who fills out the paperwork.

I also question the commercial viability of an ISP that does not offer IPv4 
services and plans to subsist for 5+ years on less than 200 customers who 
are so small they do not qualify for PI assignments.  Asking the ISP to make 
do with PA space (for the year or two it takes to deplete their VC money) is 
not unreasonable.  And, if they do somehow survive, they will qualify as 
"known" and be able to get an LIR allocation anyways.

Again, as with the last time you brought this up, I want to see an actual 
example (not a hypothetical) that there does exist a company which meets 
your specifications and has been denied an allocation.  Until then, I will 
remain convinced you are deliberately fabricating a case to demonstrate a 
perceived loophole in ARIN policy and do not have a bona fide concern.

S

PS.  I also wonder why someone in Spain cares so much about ARIN policies. 
You're not even proposing the same change here that you proposed in RIPE, 
for that matter, even though the existing policy for both is identical.

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov