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

Fri Jan 26 19:30:19 EST 2007

ARIN is not asking for a justification because as Leslie pointed out, there is no criteria to measure the justification. That doesn't mean that the community can't decide to establish criteria which would give ARIN a reason to ask for the justification and which would help to manage consumption.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:19 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal
> of "multiple /48" justification
>
> So if ARIN is not asking for a justification, that part of the policy
> is of
> NO USE and should go. The alternative is to agree on an objective
> justification criteria.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
> > De: Member Services <info at arin.net>
> > Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> > Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:55:26 -0500
> > Para: <ppml at arin.net>
> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal
> of
> > "multiple /48" justification
> >
> > Hi Andrew-
> >
> > ARIN has not registered a large number of IPv6 reassignments.
> However,
> > of those that we have registered, many of them are for initial
> > reassignments of multiple /48s to the same organization.  In fact,
> out
> > of a total of 115 reassignment registrations, 56 of them are larger
> than
> > a /48.
> >
> > To date, we have not seen requests for additional reassignments of
> /48s
> > to the same organization. Our registration software however, is
> > programmed to flag additional reassignments of this type.
> >
> > Currently, ARIN is not asking for justification for these larger
> initial
> > reassignments.  The policy text as written is unclear and contains no
> > criteria for the RIR to use to assess justification.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Leslie Nobile
> > Director, Registration Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew Dul wrote:
> >>> Policy Proposal Name: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple
> /48"
> >>> justification
> >>>
> >>> Author: Jordi Palet Martinez
> >>> Proposal Version: 1
> >>> Proposal type: delete
> >>> Policy term: permanent
> >>> Policy statement:
> >>>
> >>> Delete section 6.5.4.2. of NRMP.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> When you delete section 6.5.4.2 of the NRPM you are left with only
> the
> >> following phrase as a guideline in determining the assignment of
> multiple
> >> /48s.
> >>
> >> "...except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger
> assignment can
> >> be justified.",  section 6.5.2.1.
> >>
> >> If the goal of this policy change is to remove the requirement for
> the RIR
> >> to check a multiple /48 assignment to an endsite, then this policy
> should
> >> define the criteria for an LIR to determine if a larger than /48
> assignment
> >> is needed.  Without a criteria in policy an LIR could choose to
> assign any
> >> size block to an endsite.  Under the wording of section 6.5.2.1 only
> the
> >> word "justified" can be labeled as a criteria for determining the
> >> assignment size.   How is "justified" defined for an endsite in this
> context?
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>> It seems useless, now that there is already deployment experience,
> to
> >>> require a justification from the LIR to ARIN for assigning multiple
> /48s
> >>> (or a shorter prefix, such as for example a /47). It is up to the
> LIR to
> >>> require the justification to its own customers and decide according
> to
> >>> it. The LIR will be already responsible to justify to ARIN the
> usage of
> >>> any allocated
> >>> block(s) when requesting for more, and this will already implicate
> an
> >>> implicit justification of this kind of assignments.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is not the way I read section 6.5.4.1
> >>
> >>    "RIRs/NIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP
> >> actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs/NIRs will not request the
> detailed
> >> information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, except for
> the cases
> >> described in Section 6.4.4 and for the purposes of measuring
> utilization as
> >> defined in this document."
> >>
> >> I read section 6.5.4.1 to allow an LIR to keep no records about the
> >> justification for assignments to endsites.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> With this policy change, both ARIN and LIR staff will save
> resources in
> >>> a justification, which seems unnecessary and should be completely
> on the
> >>> hands of the LIR itself.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> How many times have ARIN staff had to evaluate the assignment of
> multiple
> >> /48s to endsites so far?  Is this really an issue?
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML mailing list
> >> PPML at arin.net
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml