[arin-ppml] Multihomed Microallocations

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I suppose we can agree to disagree here. It does, actually impact
> ISP allocations.  As soon as a person qualifies for a /24 under this
> policy as an ISP, it would immediately convert them to a known
> ISP in the ARIN service region and make them eligible to receive
> a /32 of IPv6 in addition to their IPv4 /24. While I'm all for removing
> unnecessary barriers to multi-homing, I think giving an IPv6 /32
> to every user that justifies a /24 as an ISP opens up a serious
> hole in policy.

Bullhockey. The 6.5.1.1 requirement is that the organization must "be
an LIR" as defined under 2.4. That requires that they be allocated
(not assigned) addresses from any other IR. Typically that's an RIR
like ARIN but there's not restriction on it being another LIR.

If I convince my local ISP to allocate a /24 to me and I assign some
of those addresses to one of my customers, I already qualify for an
IPv6 /32 under 6.5.1. For that matter, I can ask my ISP to allocate a
/48 of IPv6 addresses and qualify for a /32 without ever using any
IPv4 addresses at all.

IPv6 is a total red herring in this discussion.


> Further, it could be construed (although I don't think it likely) that
> you need to (under this policy) return your IPv4 resources to get
> IPv6 resources within 6 months since it does not make allowance
> for IPv6 resources to be treated separately.

No, you're right about that. I'll correct 4.4.3.5 and 4.4.3.8 to
specify IPv4. Do you see any other clauses where it needs to specify
that a non-IPv4 allocation or assignment doesn't count?

Regards,
Bill

--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004