[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-21

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake  "Kevin Oberman" <oberman at es.net>
> I have not seen much discussion of this proposal, the first one to be
> discussed in Denver. I am unclear on one issue.
>
> The proposal states "each of which must be covered by a current
> ARIN RSA". Is this the standard RSA, the LRSA, or either of the
> above. As I read the proposal, it's either of the above.

That's how I read it as well.  If the intent (or staff's interpretation) is 
to exclude the LRSA, that definitely needs to be stated.

> Is there any concern with whether this might impact IPv6 uptake,
> especially of the LRSA is not acceptable.
>
> Our customers almost all have significant legacy space and two have
> run the LRSA past their lawyers and been told that the LRSA is not
> acceptable. Since they are multihomed, they will need a direct IPv6
> assignment and they tell us that they will not do any work on
> non-experimental IPv6 use unless they have a direct assignment.

6.5.8.1 currently reads:

"To qualify for a direct assignment, an organization must:
a. not be an IPv6 LIR; and
b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the IPv4 
policy currently in effect."

This proposal would add an "or" to the latter criterion, making it:

"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 and allocations, each of which must be covered by a 
current ARIN RSA."

So, basically, the requirement that all existing IPv4 assignments and 
allocations must be efficiently utilized and subject to an RSA (or LRSA?) 
only applies if the organization does _not_ qualify for a new IPv4 
assignment or allocation.  However, it is ridiculously simple today for any 
non-trivial organization (i.e. one that has a need for PI space to 
multihome) to qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation.

Basically, the only folks that this change helps are those who currently 
have an efficiently-used legacy class C network but couldn't justify a /22 
from ARIN today; I expect that to be an extremely small group of orgs.  My 
experience is that the majority orgs small enough not to be able to qualify 
for a /22 (<256 hosts today) also do not efficiently use their class C 
either (<128 hosts, since more than one year has elapsed).

While I feel this proposal is not warranted or helpful, I also do not feel 
it will have any significant downside either for the same reason, so I 
neither support nor object to this proposal.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking