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

Sat Jan 27 04:04:11 EST 2007

Hi Ray,

Yes, I understood that. That's why I'm suggesting that this can either be a
supporting point for my proposal or alternatively, we need to establish an
objective criteria.

My position, obviously is that it will be better to just remove this
section, as I don't think the situation will change drastically in terms of
consumption.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Ray Plzak <plzak at arin.net>
> Responder a: <plzak at arin.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:30:19 -0500
> Para: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>,
> "ppml at arin.net" <ppml at arin.net>
> Conversación: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of
> "multiple /48" justification
> Asunto: RE: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of
> "multiple /48" justification
> 
> 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

**********************************************
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.