[ppml] Policy Proposal: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA andefficient use

[Leroy Ladyzhensky]

My take on this, and I am really trying to be nice, is.....

This policy is clearly motivated by self interests and not for the better of 
all....

There are plenty of good honest people and businesses out there that would 
love to be provider independent..
but since they cannot meet the requirement for IP usage they are not 
eligible for IP block from ARIN, and thus are locked into their
ISP.

So just because a Legacy holder got one way back in the beginning entitles 
them to do it again with IPv6, when they are unable to meet the current IPv6 
requirements?

If this were to pass my faith in the fairness of ARIN would be rocked to the 
core.

Leroy L.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Member Services" <info at arin.net>
To: <ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA 
andefficient use


> ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN
> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
> posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on
> ARIN's website.
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next
> regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:
>
>   1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as written. If the
> AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal
> to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.
>
>   2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next
> regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC
> will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At
> their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal.
>
>   3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal,
> the AC will explain their decision. If a proposal is not accepted, then
> the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their
> proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the  petition fails,
> then the proposal will be closed.
>
> The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the
> names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.
>
> In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
> the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Policy Proposal Name: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use
>
> Author: Scott Leibrand
>
> Proposal Version:   1.0
>
> Submission Date:   7/28/2007
>
> Proposal type:   new
>
> Policy term:   permanent
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Modify NRPM section 6.5.8.1 (Direct assignments from ARIN to end-user
> organizations: Criteria), to read:
>
> To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
>
>    1. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
>    2. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the
>       IPv4 policy currently in effect, or demonstrate efficient
>       utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment or allocation covered by a
>       current ARIN RSA.
>
> Rationale:
>
> Current policy allows direct IPv6 allocations and assignments to nearly
> all organizations with IPv4 allocations or assignments from ARIN.  As a
> result, such organizations can get IPv6 space just as easily as they can
> get IPv4 space, making it easy for them to transition to IPv6 as soon as
> they're ready to do so.  However, there are some organizations who
> received IPv4 /23's and /24's prior to the formation of ARIN, and use
> that space in a multihomed, provider-independent fashion.  Under current
> policy, such organizations cannot get IPv6 PI space without artificially
> inflating host counts, and are therefore discouraged from adopting IPv6.
>  This policy proposal aims to remove this disincentive, and allow such
> organizations to easily adopt IPv6.
>
> In addition, pre-ARIN assignments were issued through an informal
> process, and many legacy resource holders have not yet entered into a
> formal agreement with ARIN, the manager of many such IP numbering
> resources.  This policy proposal would require that such assignments be
> brought under a current ARIN Registration Services Agreement, thereby
> formalizing the relationship.
>
> Some pre-ARIN assignments may not be used efficiently.  As unallocated
> IPv4 numbering resources are approaching exhaustion, it is important to
> ensure efficient utilization of IPv4 assignments, and to arrange for
> reclamation of unused space.  Therefore, this policy would require that
> the organization wishing to receive IPv6 PI space demonstrate efficient
> utilization of their IPv4 assignment.  (Efficient utilization is already
> defined elsewhere in policy, and the exact mechanism for achieving and
> determining efficient use is a matter of procedure, not of policy, so
> detailed procedures are not included in the policy statement above.  The
> intent is that any organization with an assignment of /23 or larger
> which is less than 50% utilized would renumber and return whole unused
> CIDR blocks as necessary to bring the remaining CIDR block to 50%
> utilization or higher.  A /24 should be considered efficiently utilized
> as long as it is in use for multihoming, as /25's and smaller are not
> routable for that purpose.)
>
> It has been suggested that this policy would be useful only until the
> growth of  IPv6 exceeds the growth of IPv4.  I would agree with this,
> and would further posit that the existing "qualify ... under the IPv4
> policy currently in effect" language should also be modified at that
> time.  I have therefore proposed this policy with a policy term of
> "permanent", with the expectation that this section of policy (6.5.8.1)
> will be rewritten at the appropriate time to entirely remove all IPv4
> dependencies.
>
> Timetable for implementation:   immediate
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>