[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM
Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Mon Mar 5 22:48:26 EST 2007
At 22:33 -0500 2/15/07, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
>This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy
>proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt
>around the extent of an RIR's control.
Based on following this discussion around a few RIR's the distinction
I make is that the RIR ought to define what it measures regarding
utilization (to sustain or augment allocation) and avoid dictating
Where does an ISP go for business advice, in this case operational
advice? I don't think in this case it should be the RIR. An RIR
"helping" an ISP would violate fairness.
Where do ISP's go collectively for advice (as opposed to just one of
them)? Fairness isn't a problem for that, but then it comes down to
a question of whether the RIR is the best source of information.
Having seen the debate over "moving" from /48 to /56 - on the one
hand for more conservation but on the other hand upending some
architectural assumptions - I think that the RIRs should reference
the protocol engineering work done elsewhere.
What I have here is pretty much what I elided from Dan's message.
I'm restating it just to add another voice in the matter.
>Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should conduct
>it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use
>resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed wording in
>22.214.171.124 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section
>126.96.36.199 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear
>initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with
>nothing to prevent irresponsible practices.
Should policy be used to dictate responsible behavior?
Indirectly I suppose. Having just been in a jurisdiction that seeks
to control a potential gaming habit among the local population by
requiring locals to purchase expensive gaming permits to enter the
newly built establishments that have gaming while permitting
foreigners to enter freely; compare that to jurisdictions that deal
with gaming habits by letting habits develop but deal with the
consequences by less direct policies. Kind of like
deadlock-prevention vs. deadlock-recovery approaches to operating
My preference is for the latter, but I will readily admit that my
preference may not be the best practical approach. (I.e., I've gamed
without developing the habit, etc.) My leaning is toward ARIN
playing the role of having policies that are indirect - that is
enforcing conservation via "you don't get more if you've squandered
it" - but also being active in educating ISPs about the perils of
waste and in particular, promoting documents developed where
We don't want to have a Betty Ford Clinic for ISPs. But I have seen
what happens to the policy discussions when we put operational
parameters in the text.
BTW - I'm avoiding words that some spam-filtering software likes to
pick up as in "Condado Plaza Hotel & $house_of_gaming".
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
Sarcasm doesn't scale.
More information about the ARIN-PPML