[arin-ppml] questions about AC decision re: 103.
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Dec 22 18:27:15 EST 2009
Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "Member" == Member Services <info at arin.net> writes:
> Member> 103. Change IPv6 Allocation Process 104. Multiple Discrete
> Member> Networks for proposal 103
> Member> The AC stated, "The ARIN Advisory Council determined to
> Member> abandon Policy Proposal #103: Change IPv6 Allocation
> Member> Process. While the AC perceives there is significant
> Member> support for major revisions to IPv6 policy, the AC could not
> Member> support this proposal in its current form. The majority of
> Member> the AC felt the only way they could move this proposal
> Member> forward would have been to modify it in ways not perceived
> Member> as compatible with the author's original intent. The AC
> Member> would like to work with the author and the rest of community
> Member> to develop future IPv6 policy proposals.
> Can we get a clear statement of:
> 1) what does the AC feel they need to do?
> 2) what does the AC feel the author's intent is?
> 3) is the "classful" nature of the proposal a sticking point?
I am not speaking for the whole AC, and I'm not sure how clear this will
all actually be either. As one of the shepherds for this proposal I
attempted to distill a number of points that were being discussed, at
least by some of the members of the AC. I refer you to my email of
December 11th for that.
To that I will add, that while not directly part of the proposal, the
fee structure example in the rational was also at least partially an
I will reiterate, I believe the biggest issue was the lack of a "needs
basis". I don't believe "efficient utilization" is necessarily a proper
measure of "operational need" in IPv6. But, neither is how big of a
check you can write a proper measure of "operational need". Personally,
I'm OK with it being part of the equation, but there most be something
more to it than just that.
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.
What are the options from here;
1. Bill or someone else could appeal the AC decision, see the original
email for the details.
2. We can discuss changing Bill's proposal and then resubmit it. As one
of the AC shepherds for this proposal, I believe it is my role to help
facilitate this option, if there is interest in this at least in the
near term. Or;
3. We could drop this discussion and look at other ideas.
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
1. Rewrite 188.8.131.52; 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 184.108.40.206; Currently end-user policy for IPv6 depends on IPv4
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.
Longer-term (beyond the Toronto PPM, maybe with an open discussion at
the Toronto PPM)), I believe we must to figure out what "operation need"
and "needs basis" really means for IPv6 and maybe revisit HD-Ratios and
really rethink IPv6 policy altogether. But, I'm not sure any of these
are will be ready for policy for a little while.
I would hope other AC members will express their opinions too.
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;
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML