[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
Ted Mittelstaedt
tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Mar 24 15:52:55 EDT 2009
And your position on 2008-3 is....?
Ted
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 12:46 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community
> Networks IPv6 Assignment
>
> There is a disconnect between original IPv6 marketing hype
> and reality here.
>
> The "simple renumbering" and independent internal addressing
> structure capabilities are not fully baked and have not as
> yet materialized in IPv6.
>
> Owen
>
> On Mar 24, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> >
> > I had thought that one of the big advantages of IPv6 is that it was
> > designed to be simple to renumber.
> >
> > Thus I am not sure why having "a stable and globally unique address
> > assignment" has anything to do with having "a stable
> internal address
> > structure" under IPv6. I can understand why a community
> network would
> > need the second thing, but I don't see why they can't have
> this under
> > a globally unique address assignment that's made by a LIR
> instead of
> > by ARIN.
> >
> > The community network's internal address structure would NOT change
> > when their connections to outside networks come and go - under IPv6.
> >
> > Could the proposers explain what they need, here? We all what to
> > support non-profit community networks that help poor people get
> > online, but at first blush this looks like the proposal authors are
> > assuming IPv6 == IPv4.
> >
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> >> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> >> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:05 PM
> >> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks
> >> IPv6 Assignment
> >>
> >> SUBJECT: Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
> >>
> >> Draft Policy 2008-3
> >> Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
> >>
> >> The following draft policy text is being posted for feedback and
> >> discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).
> >>
> >> After the October 2008 Public Policy Meeting the ARIN Advisory
> >> Council
> >> (AC) decided that 2008-3 required more work. The text below was
> >> developed by the AC. The AC was required to submit text to
> ARIN for
> >> staff and legal assessment prior to selecting it as a
> draft policy.
> >> The assessment, along with the text that was assessed, is located
> >> below the draft policy.
> >>
> >> On 20 March 2009 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected
> Draft Policy
> >> 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment for adoption
> discussion on
> >> the PPML and at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting.
> >>
> >> Draft Policy 2008-3 is below and can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_3.html
> >>
> >> We encourage you to discuss Draft Policy 2008-3 on PPML
> prior to the
> >> ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting. Both the discussion on
> the PPML and
> >> at the Public Policy Meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory
> >> Council to determine the community consensus regarding
> adopting this
> >> as policy.
> >>
> >> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >>
> >> All of the Draft Policies under discussion can be found at:
> >> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Member Services
> >> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >>
> >>
> >> ## * ##
> >>
> >>
> >> Draft Policy 2008-3
> >> Community Networks IPv6 Assignment
> >>
> >> Date: 23 March 2009
> >>
> >> Policy statement:
> >>
> >> [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.]
> >>
> >> 2.8 Community Network
> >>
> >> A community network is any network organized and operated
> by a mostly
> >> volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of a
> >> non-profit organization or university for the purpose of providing
> >> free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of their
> local service
> >> area. To be treated as a community network under ARIN policy, the
> >> applicant must further certify to ARIN that the community network
> >> staff is at least 50% volunteer and that the annual budget for
> >> community network activities is less than $250,000.
> >>
> >> [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.]
> >>
> >> b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN
> under the
> >> IPv4 policy currently in effect or be a qualifying
> Community Network
> >> as defined in Section 2.8, with assignment criteria defined in
> >> section 6.5.9.
> >>
> >> [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.]
> >>
> >> 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria
> >>
> >> To qualify for a direct assignment, a community network must
> >> demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service
> to at least
> >> 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide
> >> sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users
> within one year.
> >> For community networks located in rural regions or in the
> Caribbean
> >> and North Atlantic Islands Sector, the numbers in these
> qualification
> >> criteria may be relaxed at ARIN's discretion.
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.2. Initial assignment size
> >>
> >> The minimum size of the assignment is /48. Organizations
> requesting a
> >> larger assignment must provide documentation of the
> characteristics
> >> of the Community Network's size and architecture that
> require the use
> >> of additional subnets. An HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet
> >> utilization within the network must be met for all
> assignments larger
> >> than a /48.
> >> These assignments shall be made from a distinctly
> identified prefix
> >> and shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
> >> This reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at
> >> ARIN's discretion.
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.3. Subsequent assignment size
> >>
> >> Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
> >> subnets is justified. Justification will be determined based on a
> >> detailed plan of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio
> >> metric. When possible, assignments will be made from an
> aggregatable
> >> adjacent address block.
> >>
> >>
> >> Rationale:
> >>
> >> this policy was originally proposed by community network
> operators to
> >> provide them with the ability to receive a direct
> assignment of IPv6
> >> address resources from ARIN. the operators of such networks have
> >> expressed their need to have a stable and globally unique address
> >> assignment with which to number their network infrastructure. many
> >> such networks are not able to meet the current criteria
> for a PI IPv6
> >> assignment from ARIN. in an environment where connections
> to outside
> >> networks may come and go, a stable internal address
> structure would
> >> be very valuable. additionally, the ability to exchange
> routes with
> >> others, whether locally or tunneled, and thereby have native IPv6
> >> connectivity, would be quite beneficial. these operators were also
> >> hopeful that, once this new class of address assignments
> was created,
> >> they could pursue lower annual fees for community networks through
> >> the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP).
> >>
> >> there could also be a number of potential benefits to allowing
> >> community network participants to begin using IPv6
> addressing. some
> >> of these networks have many technically capable and adventurous
> >> members who would be motivated to begin developing and/or
> >> experimenting with the software extensions which will be needed to
> >> support IPv6 prefix selection among multiple IPv6 prefixes when
> >> establishing remote connections. also, participants in networks
> >> receiving such assignments will have the necessary global-ID to
> >> experiment with the various proposals currently being
> developed for
> >> separating network locater from network ID.
> >>
> >> also, during the more than one year timeframe that this policy has
> >> been under consideration, other people have suggested
> other scenarios
> >> where community networks would provide a valuable
> resource. one such
> >> proposal was discussed at one of the Caribbean Sector
> meetings where
> >> some participants pointed out the efforts were being made
> in remote
> >> or sparsely populated areas to establish community networks which
> >> would serve as connections back to educational resources
> for distant
> >> learning capabilities. there are also many still wild
> areas of North
> >> America where such community networks could provide improved
> >> connectivity over telephone modems.
> >>
> >> Timetable for implementation: Immediate.
> >>
> >>
> >> #####
> >>
> >>
> >> ARIN Staff Assessment
> >>
> >> *2008-3*
> >>
> >> *Title: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation*
> >>
> >> *Proposal Submitted: 04 March 2008*
> >>
> >> *Latest Revision Submitted: 06 March 2009 (includes AC revisions)*
> >>
> >> *Date of Assessment: 15 March 2009*
> >>
> >> I. Understanding of the Policy:
> >>
> >> *Staff Understanding of the Proposal:*
> >>
> >> ARIN staff understands this policy would provide an IPv6
> assignment
> >> of a
> >> /48 or larger to any community network that can
> demonstrate it will
> >> provide service to at least 100 users immediately, and
> have a plan to
> >> demonstrate that it will provide service to at least 200
> users within
> >> one year.
> >>
> >> II. Comments
> >>
> >> A. ARIN Staff Comments:
> >>
> >> . The title of the policy says "allocation" while this policy is
> >> clearly an "assignment" policy. Therefore, the title should be
> >> changed. In addition, the title of section 6.5.9 should be
> changed to
> >> say "assignment" and not "allocation".
> >>
> >> B. ARIN General Counsel Comments:
> >>
> >> Counsel sees no significant legal or litigation risk
> regarding this
> >> policy.
> >>
> >> III. Resource Impact
> >>
> >> The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed
> as minimal.
> >> It is estimated that this policy could require up to
> >> 1 person month of effort to implement following
> ratification by the
> >> ARIN Board of Trustees. It may require the following:
> >>
> >> * Guidelines Changes
> >> * Staff training
> >> * Development of new internal procedures
> >>
> >> Text assessed:
> >>
> >> 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation**
> >>
> >> *Policy statement:*
> >>
> >> [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.]
> >>
> >> 2.8 Community Network
> >>
> >> A community network is any network organized and operated
> by a mostly
> >> volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of a
> >> non-profit organization or university for the purpose of providing
> >> free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of their
> local service
> >> area. To be treated as a community network under ARIN policy, the
> >> applicant must further certify to ARIN that the community network
> >> staff is at least 50% volunteer and that the annual budget for
> >> community network activities is less than $250,000.
> >>
> >> [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.]
> >>
> >> b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN
> under the
> >> IPv4 policy currently in effect or be a qualifying
> Community Network
> >> as defined in Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in
> >> section 6.5.9.
> >>
> >> [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.]
> >>
> >> 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.1 Qualification Criteria
> >>
> >> To qualify for a direct assignment, a community network must
> >> demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service
> to at least
> >> 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide
> >> sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users
> within one year.
> >> For community networks located in rural regions or in the
> Caribbean
> >> and North Atlantic Islands Sector, the numbers in these
> qualification
> >> criteria may be relaxed at ARIN's discretion.
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.2. Initial assignment size
> >>
> >> The minimum size of the assignment is /48. Organizations
> requesting a
> >> larger assignment must provide documentation of the
> characteristics
> >> of the Community Network's size and architecture that
> require the use
> >> of additional subnets. An HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet
> >> utilization within the network must be met for all
> assignments larger
> >> than a /48.
> >> These assignments shall be made from a distinctly
> identified prefix
> >> and shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
> >> This reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at
> >> ARIN's discretion.
> >>
> >> 6.5.9.3. Subsequent assignment size
> >>
> >> Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
> >> subnets is justified. Justification will be determined based on a
> >> detailed plan of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio
> >> metric. When possible, assignments will be made from an
> aggregatable
> >> adjacent address block.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> to the ARIN
> >> Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> to the ARIN
> > Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list