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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:03:19 -0600
> Para: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of
> "multiple /48" justification
> 
> Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
>>> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I believe the the LIR is reasonable also, and that's why I will much
>> prefer to have them taking this decision. I'm not saying that the ARIN
>> hostmasters criteria is not reasonable, but if we don't have a
>> concrete
>> definition for "justified", and think is fair enough to keep trusting
>> the LIR.
> 
> If we provide no guidance to the LIR on what "justifies" a larger
> assignment, how can we expect them to be reasonable?  We haven't told
> them what we're trusting them to do!

Right, but the same guidance is required by ARIN staff to be objective ...

> 
>> Otherwise, agree with you, let's work on a possible definition for
>> "justified". Do you think we can find an agreement about that ?
> 
> I'd like that, just like I'd like a real definition for "site" (i.e. the
> location vs. organization debate).  I also think that the criteria for a
> larger assignment by an LIR should match the criteria for a larger
> direct assignment by ARIN; we don't have that either.
> 
> However, it's unclear that there is actually a problem here to be
> solved.  Absent a comment from the ARIN Staff that a non-trivial number
> of larger-than-/48 assingments have been referred to them, I propose
> that we not solve this "problem" until it actually exists and we have
> the data to show what exactly needs solving.

The problem is no having an objective criteria. In absence of that, this
text on the policy is useless and it should be removed.

> 
> Along those lines, I also object to the removal of the "interim"
> designation from the IPv6 policies.  We don't know what the policies
> should be at this point, we still haven't fully defined what we think
> they should be, and we don't have enough experience to progress past an
> interim status.  Hopefully that will change in a few years, but it's
> reality today.

By definition any policy is subjected to changes if there is new experience,
needs, or whatever. Having such text in the IPv6 one and not in others make
it a strange and unfair situation.

> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.