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

Tue Oct 23 14:36:23 EDT 2007

Ted: I'm not 100% sure which text you're expressing support for.  Can 
you clarify?

Thanks,
Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>     