[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 15 23:54:54 EST 2007
I think that the root problem is that the RIR and ASO have policy as
What I believe is needed is an additional tool. If we add a
tool, then, we have the NRPM for Policy, and the "recommendation
Policy should not dictate how an ISP/LIR operates it's business.
Best common practices and other recommendations could be collected
in such a "recommendations repository" as a community resource without
carrying the force or appearance of policy, thus removing the confusion.
So, perhaps what is needed is a (rather large) policy proposal that
does the following:
1. Create the "recommendations repository" (please, come up with
a better name for it).
2. Remove all such recommendations from the NRPM.
3. Add a section to the NRPM stating that non-binding recommendations
are retained in the repository and that the NRPM is strictly for
binding policies regarding resource allocations.
4. Define a procedure for the updating of the "recommendations
probably much like the IRPEP, or, extend the IRPEP to allow it to
encompass the creation/modification of such recommendations.
5. Whatever other steps I missed in this process.
On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy
> proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt
> around the extent of an RIR's control.
> One thought is "These statements should be removed." This is because
> ARIN should not be mandating what an ISP/LIR can allocate to it's
> Even if it wanted to, it has little ability to enforce such a
> so why try and take this stance. Once an ISP/LIR obtains an
> they can allocate in whatever way they feel is necessary. ARIN's main
> recourse to enforce responsible use is the initial and subsequent
> allocation requirements. Trying to make these kinds of demands gives
> ARIN an intrusive image it can't control.
> The other thought is "These statements should remain." This is because
> ARIN needs some mechanism to provide direction, in response to
> organizations seeking guidance, on how to allocate responsibly, and
> is expected of them.
> It is not an issue that the information is in there, but where in the
> NRPM it is placed. By having the statement in section 6.5.4 it leans
> towards the first approach, trying to define how an ISP/LIR should
> service it's customers.
> Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should
> it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use
> resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed
> wording in
> 22.214.171.124 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in
> 126.96.36.199 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear
> initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with
> nothing to prevent irresponsible practices.
> This is a very subtle difference but seems to be where many proposals
> run into issues. As a result, these statements should remain as
> guidelines, until the community is comfortable with the development of
> the surrounding IPv6 policies.
> My two cents,
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of
> cja at daydream.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:34 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational
> Informationfrom NRPM
> Hi everyone,
> I would like to have some discussion here about this. For the time
> being I have withdrawn this proposal. The reason is that it seems
> the information that it strikes is information that the ARIN staff
> to help guide LIRs to assign reasonable blocks to their customers.
> an LIR assigns /40s to each of its customers just because, ARIN can
> point to the guidelines as to what more reasonable assignments
> are. It
> is pretty much a given that this information needs to exist somewhere
> but it's not quite policy. I'd like your thoughts about this.
> One idea is to have a document that's like the NRPM but contains
> operational guidelines for LIRs. Maybe like an NPOG (Number Policy
> Operational Guidelines).
> On 2/10/07, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with
> the ARIN
> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is
> posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being
> placed on
> ARIN's website.
> The AC will review this proposal and may decide to:
> 1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is
> 2. Work with the author to:
> a) clarify the language or intent of the proposal;
> b) divide the proposal into two (2) or more proposals; or
> c) combine the proposal with other proposals; or,
> 3. Not accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal.
> The AC will review this proposal at their next meeting. If the
> accepts the proposal, then it will be posted as a formal policy
> to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. If
> the AC
> does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that
> and at that time the author may elect to use the petition
> process to
> advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or
> petition fails, then the proposal will be closed.
> 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: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information
> from NRPM
> Lea Roberts
> Cathy Aronson
> Proposal Version: Version 0
> Submission Date: 8 February 2007
> Proposal type: Modify
> Policy term: Permanent
> Policy statement:
> The following parts of Section 188.8.131.52 should be removed from
> Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).
> NRPM Section 184.108.40.206 states:
> The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only
> * /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
> * /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets
> over the next 5 years.
> * /48 for larger sites
> Discussions in recent public policy meetings, as well as in
> Council meetings, have led to the consensus that operational
> information, such as these IPv6 guidelines, should be removed
> from the
> NRPM. This section is a clear example of text not directly
> related to
> ARIN policy and so it is proposed that it should be removed.
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
More information about the ARIN-PPML