[ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6initialallocation criteria - revised text

[Davis, Terry L]

Michael

Excellent commentary!

For the readers to consider in thinking about your comments:
The aviation industry will be developing at least three independent IP
networks serving each commercial aircraft flying the world.  These
networks will span the entire globe!  (We have several airlines that
have aircraft that literally complete a circle of the globe every few
days.)

The air traffic control network will be closed as it is today.  But the
addressing still ideally should come from a single block of addresses
(sub-addressed between aircraft and ground system).  And these addresses
will need to be pooled, distributed, and managed under the rules of the
International Civil Aviation Organization.  In ICAO's case, they will
need the allocation years ahead of the first actual use as they will
have to make their allocations from that space to the airlines and
governments around the world.

The airline networks, for their business communications with their
fleets, will also need to almost certainly use a global network design.

As will the onboard networks dedicated to serving the passengers for
both Internet and live video content to the seat back.

I think you will see the same requirements from the maritime and several
other industries.

Industry and business needs the some type of consideration here.

Take care
Terry

PS: Especially "critical infrastructure"!  Next time you are at home and
the snow is really deep outside and the wind blowing or it is really hot
and the air conditioner is going full tilt, ask yourself if you would
like for your power company to be planning switching ISP's that day and
re-addressing all their SCADA systems across three or four states?

And can you imagine when would be a good time for an airline (even a
small one) to switch ISP's without potentially disrupting your travel
someway? 

Or consider any other critical infrastructure that you have to deal with
daily and remember critical infrastructure includes small businesses;
hospitals, clinics, banks, local fuel distributor, refineries, gas
company, etc.  When would be a convenient time for them to change ISP's
and switch addresses so no one was impacted?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael.dillon at bt.com [mailto:michael.dillon at bt.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 6:53 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to
> IPv6initialallocation criteria - revised text
> 
> > Aside: It's not entirely clear to me if a provider not
> > connected to the
> > public Internet can become an LIR; does private "connectivity" and
> > "advertising" count?
> 
> It counts. RFC 2050 still applies even to IPv6 addressing.
> 
> I think our main problem with IPv6 policy is the ISP-centric wording.
> For instance, a railway sensor network that spans North America seems
to
> fit into the category "end-site" which is a totally irrational way to
> describe such a network.
> 
> One way to address this issue is to restructure the policy and make
some
> implicit things explicit. For instance:
>   =====
> Secition A) ARIN provides allocations of IPv6 address space to
> organizations who operate continually growing networks which connect
> many other organizations together. The classic examples of this are
the
> ISP (Internet Service Provider), the VAN (Value-Added Network) and the
> Industry Extranet (automotive, financial services). These
organizations
> become ARIN LIRs(Local Internet Registries) and are expected to
provide
> assignments of IPv6 address space to organizations who connect to
their
> networks.
> 
> Section B) ARIN also provides assignments of IPv6 address space to
> organizations who are building an IPv6 network that remains largely
> under their control with limited interconnectivity with other
networks.
> This ranges from enterprises to railway consortia to cellphone
> operators. The key distinguishing characteristic of these
organizations
> is that their networks are not continually growing at such a scale
that
> they have to plan for additional allocations of IPv6 addresses at
> regular intervals. In other words, they are not network service
> providers whose prime business is network connectivity services.
>   =====
> 
> Given something like this in the policy, then it becomes simpler to
> address the area under contention.
> 
> Organizations cannot receive IPv6 addresses under both section A and
> section B.
> 
> Section A organizations must provide sufficient documentation to show
> that they are providing IPv6 network services or will do so within the
> first year after receiving an allocation.
> 
> Section A organizations must sign an LIR agreement with ARIN.
> 
> Section A organizations must maintain an active abuse desk contact
with
> ARIN.
> 
> Section A organizations must ...
> 
> You can see what I am getting at. We've been hacking away at minor
> adjustments to this wording for ages with no resolution. People can't
> agree because they don't share the same understanding of the existing
> wording. This lack of shared understanding then extends to the minor
> changes as well. The solution is to rework a larger section of policy
> (or multiple sections of policy) to get some much clearer prose in
place
> which is unambiguous. In the process, there are some things that are
not
> clearly spelled out in the policy and they could be. I know it is hard
> for the ISP-oriented folks to see this so I hope some of the corporate
> members will step up and contribute here. ARIN policy does not have to
> be so mystifying.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml