[arin-ppml] 2008-3 Community WIreless Networks

[Owen DeLong]

While I would agree that 100% volunteer is probably too far, I think  
it's better
than not getting any policy.

The AC was not able to agree on any course of action for this policy  
after the
last public policy meeting.

Personally, I feel that this policy is needed, and, that there are  
good reasons
for community networks to get provider independent space.

Community networks provide a useful service to a variety of populations,
many of whom would not otherwise have access to the internet. They also
tend to be in a position to provide communications resources in times  
when
more traditional means of communication may not be as readily available,
such as in times of disaster.

Many of these networks depend on the good will and support of local
or nearby providers and receive donated connectivity. In those cases,
having portable addresses and the ability to exchange routes with one
or more such providers and the ability to readily accept connections and
disconnections as they come is a very useful thing.

I think that claiming these networks would not be advertised on the  
global
internet was a mistake.  However, there are cases where community  
networks
need to interact with multiple organizations in a way that isn't  
entirely compatible
with ULA while still not being globally advertised.

One person suggested that a /64 would be adequate for 100-200 users.   
This
makes no allowance for the fact that each of those 100-200 users may,  
themselves
need a subnet.  In IPv6, a subnet is supposed to be a /64, so, that's  
at least a /56
in any case and still doesn't allow for the networks necessary to  
number the
infrastructure of the community network itself.

Many of these networks are not a single router sitting in a closet  
somewhere,
but, have significant metro-area infrastructure, often involving  
multiple
wireless links, VPNs, tunnels, and other diverse topologies.

One example of a community network that might put this in some
perspective can be found here: http://www.svwux.org

There are many, many more examples available, and, they are very diverse
in their designs, users served, and organizational structures.  About  
the only
thing most of them have in common is a need for portable stable  
addressing.

I can understand resistance to this idea in the IPv4 world, but, in  
the IPv6
world, it just doesn't make sense to prevent these organizations from  
getting
the addressing they need.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090818/65f2b8bc/attachment.p7s>