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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Sat Jan 27 04:13:42 EST 2007


In my opinion, policies are not made to be a show stopper, but to regulate
the situation. If the policy is broken (incomplete, because can't be applied
due to the lack of an objective criteria), there is a problem.

The solution is not to ignore it until someone suffer the problem. That's
not fair. A business can't wait for 1 year (my guess about minimum time
required to succeed with a policy proposal) or even have the risk that there
is never an agreement in the definition of an objective criteria and wait


> De: Stephen Sprunk <stephen at sprunk.org>
> Responder a: <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
> Fecha: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:38:10 -0600
> Para: ARIN PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Changes to IPv6 policy - removal of
> "multiple /48" justification
> Thus spake "Member Services" <info at arin.net>
>> 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.
> ...
>> 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.
> I'd caution readers here that "multiple /48s to the same organization"
> might not mean that the LIR is attempting to allocate "larger than a
> /48."  It could be that those organizations have multiple service
> locations with the same billing address, e.g. a corporation using the
> Internet for inter-office connectivity.  This comes back to the "site"
> definition problem I just referenced in another message.
> ( This assumes ARIN's software provides a way to reassign a /47 in a
> single operation; all bets are off if that's incorrect.  Since I'm
> merely a member of the general public and not an LIR, I don't know. )
>> 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.
> If the number is "zero to date", then IMHO this proposal is a solution
> in search of a problem.  Until someone's request gets denied, we
> _cannot_ have a problem with the rules being too strict, only with them
> being too loose.
> I'm not thrilled with the "not asking for justification" above, though I
> understand that's a logical result of the interim policy (as would not
> accepting _any_ justification).  I'd prefer that ARIN ask why, even if
> you're going to rubber-stamp the approvals for lack of criteria.  That
> may sound pointless for your purposes, but it'd help us figure out what
> kind of direction you need from us in future policy.  Once you've gotten
> a few real cases, you can present a "here's what we did and why, so
> change the policy if you don't like it" at the next meeting.
> Still, thanks for the data, Leslie.  It's good to see what the impact
> (or not) our policies have on ARIN's operations.
> 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 !

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 mailing list