[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification

[Leo Vegoda]

On Jan 25, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:

[on deleting 6.5.4.2]

> While most LIRs are usually reasonable, to me it seems important to  
> include
> defined and somewhat rigorous criteria for the assignment of  
> multiple /48s
> and a requirement for the LIR to record this justification for later
> auditing by the RIR when an LIR returns to the RIR for an additional
> allocation.
>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The current text requires the LIR to justify to the RIR/NIR when
>> assigning multiple /48s to a single end site. It seems that the  
>> reason
>> for this requirement is the lack of experience, which seems  
>> unreasonable
>> after a few years this policy has been implemented, even if may  
>> not have
>> been specific cases which used this policy section.
>>
>
> I think the section was reasonably written as a throttle to  
> excessive IPv6
> assignments to endsites by LIRs.

While I appreciate the explanation that 6.5.4.2 was intended to  
throttle excessive IPv6 assignments to end sites, it has always been  
possible to work around it using section (6.5.3 LIR-to-ISP  
allocation). It specifically states that there "is no specific policy  
for an organization (LIR) to allocate address space to subordinate  
ISPs. Each LIR organization may develop its own policy for  
subordinate ISPs to encourage optimum utilization of the total  
address block allocated to the LIR."

This has always allowed any ISP with an IPv6 allocation to define any  
downstream customer as an ISP and sub-allocate rather than assign space.

As things stand, deleting 6.5.4.2 is unlikely to have a significant  
impact on address space consumption unless there is also a change to  
the policy on sub-allocations.

Regards,

-- 
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison