[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri Feb 16 07:43:11 EST 2007
Well, it is not quite true that the RIR cannot control the assignment practices of a provider.
Irresponsible...against the dictates of the RIR...assignment earns the provider a harder time receiving subsequent allocations, right?
Still, mostly I agree with what Dan has to say here.
Guidance, with rational should be one source of information...you SHOULD not allocated beyond the needs e.g. /56 for.../48 for etc...because...
Operational direction, should be another...e.g. this IS the way we do things....e.g. Templates, authentication, etc.
Best Practice, perhaps from third parties on aggregation or multihoming practice.
All this could be collected and referenced(linked) where needed from within the NRPM.
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Alexander, Daniel
Sent: Thu 2/15/2007 9:33 PM
To: cja at daydream.com; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM
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 users.
Even if it wanted to, it has little ability to enforce such a statement,
so why try and take this stance. Once an ISP/LIR obtains an allocation,
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 what
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 conduct
it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use
resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed wording in
18.104.22.168 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section
22.214.171.124 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
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 that
the information that it strikes is information that the ARIN staff uses
to help guide LIRs to assign reasonable blocks to their customers. When
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
On 2/10/07, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is
posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being
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
does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that
and at that time the author may elect to use the petition
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
Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Policy Proposal Name: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information
Proposal Version: Version 0
Submission Date: 8 February 2007
Proposal type: Modify
Policy term: Permanent
The following parts of Section 126.96.36.199 should be removed from
Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).
NRPM Section 188.8.131.52 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
NRPM. This section is a clear example of text not directly
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML