[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
andrew.dul at quark.net
Thu Jan 25 17:38:51 EST 2007
>Policy Proposal Name: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48"
>Author: Jordi Palet Martinez
>Proposal Version: 1
>Proposal type: delete
>Policy term: permanent
>Delete section 184.108.40.206. of NRMP.
When you delete section 220.127.116.11 of the NRPM you are left with only the
following phrase as a guideline in determining the assignment of multiple
"...except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger assignment can
be justified.", section 18.104.22.168.
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 22.214.171.124 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
>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
>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 126.96.36.199
"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 188.8.131.52 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML