[ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested changes-InputRequested

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

See below, in-line.

--Michael Dillon







> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Sent: 26 January 2007 23:11
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation 
> suggested changes-InputRequested
> 
> 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 13:52:55 -0600
> > Para: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> > Asunto: Re: [ppml] FW: 2006-7 IPV6 Initial Allocation suggested
> > changes-InputRequested
> > 
> > Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> >>> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> >>> 
> >>> First I don't necessarily see the need to change the 
> existing policy.
> >>> I'd
> >>> don't see the 200 /48s plan as a real hinderance to a 
> legitimate LIR.
> >> 
> >> So do you think is not possible an ISP to have a few 
> customer and make
> >> profitable business ?
> > 
> > Being a profitable ISP and being a legitimate LIR are 
> different things.
> 
> Agree, but is not the point. I'm assuming that the ISP 
> becomes a LIR. Right
> now, if he has only a few customers, can't get allocated an 
> IPv6 block. He
> needs to go first for an IPv4 one. It is an artificial situation.
> 
> > 
> >> Do you think is reasonable to stop people that are willing 
> or already
> >> doing
> >> business this way ?
> > 
> > If they're already doing business this way, they don't have 
> a problem.
> 
> I mean is unreasonable to avoid them doing business just 
> because they are
> starting a new business based only in IPv6 services (or mainly).
> 
> > 
> >> In fact, when I introduced my idea about this possible 
> policy proposal
> >> at
> >> the last meeting, I recall at least a couple of people in the room
> >> being in
> >> this situation, so is something real.
> > 
> > The existing policy states that for an ISP to become a v6 
> LIR, it needs
> > "to be an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
> > making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations 
> within five
> > years"
> > 
> > Any existing, known ISP is exempt from the assignment 
> requirement, so
> > that leaves only new and/or unknown ISPs.  They're only 
> required to have
> > a _plan_ for making 200 assignments within _five years_, 
> and there is no
> > penalty for failing to achieve the plan.  That's a pretty 
> darn low bar
> > to meet.
> 
> If the ISP has a plan for making business with only a few 
> customers, he
> needs to invent a false plan to get allocated IPv6. This is 
> irrational. We
> don't want to force the members to lie. It is an artificial 
> barrier, and
> there is no any real need for that barrier.
> 
> > 
> > If one plans on starting a new ISP that cannot meet that 
> bar, then the
> > price is that one must make do with PA space from an 
> upstream ISP.  One
> 
> This only works if that ISP has a single upstream. It may not 
> be the case.
> Again, an artificial barrier.
> 
> > might argue about the placement of the bar (i.e. the number of
> > assignments), but it's hard to argue with the need for _some_ bar.
> > We're talking about consuming global routing table slots 
> here (even if
> > ARIN doesn't explicitly acknowledge that).  We can't just 
> give them out
> > to anyone who asks without _some_ justification showing 
> they have a bona
> > fide need for such.
> 
> Agree, routing table slots are important, but we can't go beyond
> "ultra-conservation" artificially and against freedom of business
> establishment. Can it be a case for a court ? I don't think 
> we should even
> risk for that possibility.
> 
> > 
> > Before we make any changes to these rules, I'd like to see actual
> > statements by people who have tried to get an allocation 
> and have been
> > denied.  That way the community can look at the circumstances
> > surrounding the denial, decide whether that's what we intended to
> > happen, and change the rules if not.  We're already getting 
> enough flak
> > from the larger ISPs that we've made getting a routing slot 
> too easy;
> > claims from the other side that we've made it too hard need 
> evidence,
> > IMHO.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


Jordi, 

It is annoying to pick through these long quoted messages and try to
figure out what you are trying to say. If you can't take the time to
extract the relevant bits of the quoted material then perhaps you could
just post all your comments at the top of the message. You will find
that a lot more people read your words that way.