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

Chris Malayter cmalayter at switchanddata.com
Fri May 29 14:18:20 EDT 2009


Agree with Stacy here,

I don¹t think putting strings on v6 is going help drive it¹s implementation.

-Chris



On 5/29/09 12:49 PM, "Stacy Hughes" <ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com> wrote:

>  A multihoming requirement discriminates against networks that either cannot
> or do not want to multihome.
> I oppose this modification.
> Stacy 
> 
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>> In a message written on Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:14:45AM -0400, Member
>> Services wrote:
>>> > 1) Remove ?by advertising that connectivity through its single
>>> > aggregated address allocation? from article 3 of section 6.5.1.1
>>> >
>>> > 2) Remove article 4 of section 6.5.1.1, ?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.
>> 
>> I fear the way this is written may be confusing.  Section 6.5.1.1 is at
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six511
>> 
>> If these changes were made, I believe the section would then read:
>> 
>>   6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
>> 
>>   To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
>>   organization must:
>> 
>>    1. be an LIR;
>>    2. not be an end site;
>>    3. plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to which it
>>       will assign IPv6 address space.
>> 
>> I would like to make two comments as a result.
>> 
>> Criteria #1 doesn't make a lot of sense.  If you were a new participant
>> (no IPv4 or IPv6 resources at all) and going only for IPv6 then you
>> aren't an LIR yet, indeed, you are trying to become one.  I think,
>> but cannot be sure, that the LIR reference has to do with fee/membership
>> structures of other RIR's.
>> 
>> The result of this policy is basically you get an allocation if you
>> want one and can show you will provide IPv6 to another entity and
>> are willing to pay the fees.  This is too loose of a standard.
>> While I believe we should be giving out IPv6 relatively easily and
>> there is no danger in running out of the numbers that does not mean
>> we don't still have the issue of routing slots, staff to deal with
>> the number of requests, and other issues.
>> 
>> To that end, I would like to suggest a new criteria:
>> 
>>   - Plan to announce the IPv6 address space provided to at least
>>     two other autonomous systems.
>> 
>> Basically, setting the bar at being multi-homed to BGP speaking
>> networks.  No number of sites requirement, you only need 1 customer
>> to meet the customer requirement.
>> 
>> --
>>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090529/7de98d51/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list