[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6
owen at delong.com
Mon Jun 1 16:01:47 EDT 2009
On May 30, 2009, at 10:36 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 2) Remove article 4 of section 22.214.171.124, “be an existing, known
>>>> ISP in
>>>> the ARIN region or have a plan for making at least 200 end-site
>>>> assignments to other organizations within 5 years” in its entirety.
>>>> Rationale: It is acknowledged that these concepts have been put
>>>> the community in the past. However, with the wisdom of actual
>>>> operational experience, the necessity of promoting IPv6 adoption
>>>> throughout our region, and emerging native v6 only network
>>>> models, it
>>>> becomes obvious that these modifications to the NRPM are necessary.
>>>> Removing the 200 end site requirement enables smaller, but no less
>>>> important and viable, networks access to IPv6. Removing the
>>>> ‘known ISP’
>>>> requirement enfranchises new, native v6 businesses that can drive
>>>> innovation and expansion in the Internet industry, as well as other
>>>> industries. Removing the requirement for a single aggregate
>>>> benefits the NRPM itself, as it has been decided by the community
>>>> it should not contain routing advice.
>>> I OPPOSE this change because "smaller, but no less important and
>>> viable, networks" can already apply for and obtain a /48 under
>>> existing policies.
>> Not as ISPs assigning /48s to end users, they cannot.
> Then they should be able to qualify for a /32 with some kind of
> plan. If
> 200 is a problem, maybe we reduce the requirement to 100 or something,
> not strike it out completely.
Without the number of sites, the distinction is still present. An LIR
planning to delegate prefixes to other sites while an end user does not.
End users cannot SWIP portions of their space. LIRs can. The fee
structure is also radically different. As such, I think that the
well preserved without some arbitrary requirement about their business
plan and number of customers.
More information about the ARIN-PPML