[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Fri May 29 14:36:26 EDT 2009

>  A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks 
> that either cannot or do not want to multihome.

Not if you use something like the wording I suggested 
where you explicitly say that all ISPs are assumed
to qualify.

The point is that we don't want to give /32 to just 
anyone. There must be some barrier and by design, the
/32 allocation with /48 assignment architecture was
created so that service providers get a /32. Now using
the term ISP or LIR is far too restrictive because 
there are other types of service providers ranging
from universities to freenets to corporate subsidiaries
that run a global WAN for their corporate sites. 
Any of these is a service provider and should get
a /32. A small ISP with one upstream should also get
one but if we say "either an ISP or meet specific
tests" then we cover both bases.

Just deleting some bits from the policy is not sufficient.
The whole section needs to be rewritten to fairly state
the intent.

I did suggest requiring a plan for 40 assignments per
year, on average, over 5 years, which is a way of leaving
the number 200 in place but hiding it so that it isn't
so scary to people who don't read carefully. I would also
support a number lower than 200, but suggest that we also
use the structure that I used.

It would be interesting to see the substantive comments that
were made about the number 200 when we discussed this before
but I'm not sure when that was or how much "too big" the 200
number was being interpreted by people.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list