[arin-ppml] questions about AC decision re: 103.

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I will reiterate, I believe the biggest issue was the lack of a "needs
> basis".

David,

I'd love to see a definition of needs-basis which doesn't have the
effect of making ARIN the gatekeeper for Internet routing policy. If
such a definition can be developed, I would be pleased to integrate it
into a proposal like 103. I won't hold my breath and I respectfully
don't believe the AC should expect the rest of the world to hold its
breath either.

Does the AC believe that abandoning needs-basis or moving ARIN out of
the business of setting Internet routing policy are not proper topics
for formal discussion and presentation at the meeting? Please explain.


> I don't believe the classful nature was that much of an issue, at least for
> me personally.  The current IPv6 policy is rather classful already, at least
> from my point of view, /32s and /48s seem a lot like Class As and Bs to me.
>  But, I must say I wasn't comfortable with /24s being handed out as loosely
> as was being proposed.  It just doesn't seem right, my best example is how
> some people feel today about some of the original Class A or /8 allocations,
> to major corporations.

If this was the only show stopper, I'd be happy to insert some sort of
LAN-count language which applies only to /24's and resubmit. I don't
imagine any harm in applying a needs-basis to this largest of
allocations. Please advise.



> Independent of those options and more broadly where do I think we go from
> here?  Shorter-term (for the Toronto PPM) I believe we need proposals to;
>
> 1. Rewrite 6.5.1.1; to better specify qualifications to be an ISP or LIR and
> get a /32.  A lot of people don't like the 200 end-site definition that is
> there today.  This discussion started back in Dearborn and PP#101 is one
> option for this.
>
> 2. Rewrite 6.5.8.1; Currently end-user policy for IPv6 depends on IPv4
> policy.
>
> 3. Either as part of #2 or separately, I want to propose a separate IPv6
> pool for assignments that are not intended to be part of the hierarchically
> routed global Internet.

Respectfully, these notions are stale. We've repeatedly examined them
and gotten nowhere fast. Move past this logjam to something fresh.


> But, also the minutes for the AC meetings do get posted at the
> following link, usually a few weeks after the meeting.  But given
> the holidays, I expect it will be a little longer for this one.  So, next
> month sometime look for the minutes of the December 17th Advisory
> Council meeting.  The minutes for the AC meetings up to, but not
> including, the one last week have been posted;

It's unfortunate that the minutes will not be posted prior to the
deadline for petitioning the AC's decision.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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