[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Apr 1 00:35:41 EDT 2008

While I support the idea of community networks, I oppose this policy as

The definition in section 2.8 does not qualify a number of true  
networks in my perspective, and, does qualify a number of commercial
entities which should not receive community network status.

I would like to see the definition include at least the following  

	+	IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status (501(c)5
		should not qualify in my opinion).

	+	The network should be able to be organized for purposes which
		may include connecting residences, but, could also be other
		purposes, such as supporting emergency or disaster-related
		communications, providing connectivity amongst collections
		of not-for-profits in the area, or,  a host of other purposes
		I may not be able to imagine at the moment.  Point being that
		ANY community-oriented purpose should be supported by
		a community networks policy and not just the connection of
		individual residents.

I think that community networks should have the choice as to whether
their implementation is more appropriate to an allocation or an
assignment.  I can see reasons for both and differing circumstances
which could require either.  At least one poster on this list suggested
that the community network should be required to provide services
to at least 50 distinct entities, so, in that case, it would almost be
a requirement to issue allocations only.  The policy as written only
supports assignments.  I believe that both should be allowed.  I
don't agree with the other poster about some arbitrary entry point
of the number of distinct entities connected.


On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Josh King wrote:

> Hello,
> Here's a revision of the 2008-3 policy proposal based upon the staff
> recommendations. Sorry for the extreme lateness, I did not receive the
> staff recommendations until yesterday due to problems with my email.
> I've attempted to address the concerns expressed by staff, but some
> points I've expressed may require further clarification, and I look
> forward to further staff comments.
> Changes:
> Added section 6.5.9 as per recommendation, listing allocation and user
> requirements for Community Networks allocations. Largely based upon
> and .3, with revisions to attempt to reflect the fact that a
> Community Network is neither an end-user or LIR.
> Modified section to refer to section 6.5.9.
> -- Policy Proposal 2008-3
> Community Networks IPv6 Allocation
> Author: Joshua King
> Proposal Version: 1
> Date: 4 March 2008
> Proposal type: new
> Policy term: permanent
> Policy statement:
> [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.]
> 2.8 Community Network
> A community network is a generic reference to any network that is
> operated by a group of people living in a particular local area
> organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network  
> services
> to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional
> municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township,  
> county,
> district or other municipality or other such geographic space, however
> designated.
> [Modify as follows.]
> b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the  
> IPv4
> policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in
> Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9.
> [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.]
> 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations
> Initial assignment size
> Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are
> eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the
> assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must
> provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community  
> Network's
> size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An
> HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network
> must be met for all assignments larger than a /48.
> These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix  
> and
> shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This
> reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's
> discretion.
> Subsequent assignment size
> Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional  
> subnets
> is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed  
> plan
> of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When
> possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
> Number of customers
> Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they
> provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes
> and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile
> users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also  
> submit
> a plan for doubling their service base over the next year.
> Rationale:
> There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop
> community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are
> usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which
> lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers  
> and
> other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public
> policy, software development, and implementation of community services
> and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus
> lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain
> community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not  
> thousands
> of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of
> address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to this
> problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop
> next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the
> community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will  
> cease to
> be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6 integration.
> Even now, common community networking software solutions such as
> CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk (http://www.freifunk.at)
> have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations
> lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such, it
> is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these
> segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do  
> not
> meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot
> acquire address allocations through existing templates. By  
> establishing
> a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the
> resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to
> this active community and establish a small but definite space for  
> them
> in the future of Internet.
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate.
> Josh King
> --
> josh at acornactivemedia.com
> --
> Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media
> (http://www.acornactivemedia.com)
> System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net)
> --
> "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal,
> but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list