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

David Farmer 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 
issue discussed.

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 
proposals to;

1. Rewrite; 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; 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 mailing list