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

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Sat May 30 14:36:36 EDT 2009


I support the principle of this proposal, but am somewhat taken aback by the idea that /32s would be the basic unit for smaller, innovative v6 entities.
Aren't /48s, which still constitute a huge number of addresses, enough? Or am I missing something here?


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>


________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Stacy Hughes
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:25 AM
To: Member Services
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

Hello Everyone,
Before we really get started on this policy proposal, I must give credit where credit is due.
Jordi Palet Martinez brought this topic to the table 3 years ago, and it got shot down.  I myself, in my small IPv4-centric mind, thought it impossible that an IPv6 only organization could exist.  Operations and innovation have shown me the error of our thinking.
To quote myself from a different list:
IPv6 is a new paradigm we are supposed to be doing our best to encourage.  As it stands, those community guys can't get it, the Caribbean guys can't get it, and basically anyone trying to do anything vanguard can't get it either.  (I hear the ULA objections here, even when they're nascent).

We can be afraid of what IPv6 might do to the routing table, or we can embrace what IPv6 can and will do for the Internet.
I choose the latter and support this proposal.
Stacy


On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Member Services <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy Development
Process.

This proposal is in the first stage of the Policy Development Process.
ARIN staff will perform the Clarity and Understanding step. Staff does
not evaluate the proposal at this time, their goal is to make sure that
they understand the proposal and believe the community will as well.
Staff will report their results to the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) within
10 days.

The AC will review the proposal at their next regularly scheduled
meeting (if the period before the next regularly scheduled meeting is
less than 10 days, then the period may be extended to the subsequent
regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how to utilize the
proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.

In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on
the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.

The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Mailing list subscription information can be found
at:https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/

Regards,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


## * ##


Policy Proposal Name: Open Access To IPv6

Proposal Originator: Stacy Hughes and Cathy Aronson

Proposal Version: 1.0

Date: 29 May 2009

Proposal type: modify

Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:

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.

Rationale: It is acknowledged that these concepts have been put before
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 announcement
benefits the NRPM itself, as it has been decided by the community that
it should not contain routing advice.

Timetable for implementation: immediately upon BoT ratification



_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto: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/20090530/2bb7b133/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list