[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use - Last Call

Tue Oct 23 14:12:29 EDT 2007

I like the revision, I wouldn't support it if it could be used
by a legacy holder to cherry-pick a single IPv4 legacy assignment
and use that as a straw man to cover all of their legacy IPv4 assignments.

The worst that could happen is no legacy holders would take advantage
of the new policy, thus leaving us exactly where we are now.  In that
case we revise it again.

Ted

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Scott Leibrand
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:07 AM
>To: Member Services
>Cc: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for legacy holders
>with RSA and efficient use - Last Call
>
>
>All,
>
>As the policy author, I'd like to get opinions on the wordsmithing we 
>did at the meeting.  The text to be added now reads:
>
>or demonstrate efficient utilization of all direct IPv4 
>assignments or allocations covered by a current ARIN RSA.
>
>
>If an organization had multiple legacy assignments or allocations, and 
>chose to cover just one of them under an RSA, would you read that that 
>mean they'd only have to demonstrate efficient utilization of that one 
>block?  Or does that verbiage accurately reflect the intent of the 
>proposal, that all direct IPv4 assignments or allocations must be 
>covered under an ARIN RSA and efficiently utilized?
>
>If you have any suggestions for simple wording changes to reduce 
>ambiguity, I'm all ears.  If no one has any better suggestions, and we 
>think the current proposal text is ambiguous, I'm leaning towards 
>something like:
>
>or demonstrate efficient utilization and coverage under a current 
>ARIN RSA of all direct IPv4 assignments or allocations.
>
>
>I'm perfectly willing to stick with the current text, though, if people 
>think it's clear and doesn't have any loopholes.
>
>Thanks,
>Scott
>
>P.S. I'm also interested in how ARIN staff would interpret the current 
>proposed text.
>
>Member Services wrote:
>> Policy Proposal 2007-21
>> PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use
>>
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the provisions of the ARIN
>> Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), determined that
>> there is community consensus in favor of the amended proposal and moved
>> it to last call. The policy text was amended from "a direct IPv4
>> assignment or allocation" to "all direct IPv4 assignments or
>> allocations." The AC made this determination at their meeting at the
>> conclusion of the ARIN Public Policy meeting on 18 October 2007. The
>> Chair of the AC reported the results of the AC meeting during the
>> Members Meeting. The AC Chair's report can be found at:
>> http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XX/mem.html
>>
>> The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at:
>> http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_21.html
>>
>> Comments are encouraged. All comments should be provided to
>> ppml at arin.net. This last call will expire at 23:59, Eastern Time, 6
>> November 2007.
>>
>> The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
>> http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>>
>> Policy Proposal 2007-21
>> PIv6 for legacy holders with RSA and efficient use
>>
>> Author: Scott Leibrand
>>
>> 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 all direct IPv4 assignments or
>> allocations 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>ARIN Public Policy
>> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the 
>ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>   
>_______________________________________________
>PPML
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the 
>ARIN Public Policy
>Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the 
>ARIN Member Services
>Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>