[ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Informationfrom NRPM

Edward Lewis 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 
operational parameters.

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
> should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section
> 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 mailing list