[ppml] those pesky users...

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:03 PM
> To: Howard, W. Lee; Johnson, Ron; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] those pesky users...
> 
> Lee, ARIN and the other RIR's need to admit a huge mistake 
> was made over the IPv6 allocations and then go forward with 
> correcting it.

There's still a basic pronoun problem.  The RIRs do what the
public dictates in the form of policy passed by community 
consensus.  The exception (for ARIN, I assume for the other RIRs 
too) is that fees are set by members.  If we have made a mistake,
then it's "we" the "community of internet number wonks," not "we"
the "people behind the curtain at ARIN."  

> What you should have done was for ALL ipv4 assignments you 
> should have AUTOMATICALLY made an IPv6 assignment of a number 
> block.  

That would be possible.  Should everyone get a /32 or a /48 or
some other number?


> The best thing going forward would be for ARIN and the other 
> RIR's to drop the IPv4 and IPv6 fee schedules (the wavier is 
> a joke anyway, what is the point of an IPv6 fee schedule with 
> a fee of $0) 

The point was to let people know what the fee would be, someday,
so they could plan for it.

> and replace it with a single IP allocation fee 
> schedule that applies to both kinds of numbering, then for 

Noted for future FinCom discussion, as with your earlier 
suggestion to increase fees "parabolically." 

> all current IPv4 holders that the numbering authorities have 
> assigned numbering for, just go ahead and assign IPv6 
> allocations at a 1 to 1 ratio.  (for every single IPv4 
> address you get an IPv6 address) It's not like there's any 
> shortage of IPv6.

Er, sorry.  A /21 in IPv4 translates to a /117 in IPv6?  Or
is that /53?  Should we ignore nybble boundaries?

 

> Then what you do is get rid of the separate IPv4 and IPv6 
> numbering requests and replace them with a single numbering 
> request that is used for both IPv4 and IPv6.  Then just 
> adjust the justification requirements so that IPv6 hardly has 
> any, and IPv4 has harder requirements - that way, 
> organizations that only need IPv6 will just leave the IPv4 
> justification requirements blank, and only get IPv6.

The justification for additional address space in IPv6 requires
a much lower host density than IPv4 (if we take "host density"
to be analogous to "assignments").  

See the Number Resource Policy Manual, specifically
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six52
http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six7

This was based on a recommendation from the IETF, though adjusted 
last year to be slightly tighter (policy proposal 2005-5):
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_5.html

And I have to tip my hat again to the Member Services staff who
maintain the NRPM for making it easy for me to find (using the
change log) what policy proposal changed the policy and when.


I'm having trouble envisioning a combined justification form.
Would you be willing to cobble one together, based on existing
templates?

 
> Ted

Lee