[ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48" justification
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Jan 26 07:08:43 EST 2007
See below in-line.
> De: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:38:51 -0800
> Para: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of
> "multiple /48" justification
>> Policy Proposal Name: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of "multiple /48"
>> Author: Jordi Palet Martinez
>> Proposal Version: 1
>> Proposal type: delete
>> Policy term: permanent
>> Policy statement:
>> Delete section 126.96.36.199. of NRMP.
> When you delete section 188.8.131.52 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 184.108.40.206.
> 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 220.127.116.11 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?
The question is the same right now for ARIN. How is "justified" defined for
hotsmasters to authorize that assignment ?
> 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
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.
Otherwise, agree with you, let's work on a possible definition for
"justified". Do you think we can find an agreement about that ?
>> 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 18.104.22.168
> "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 22.214.171.124 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
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML