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

Seth Mattinen sethm at rollernet.us
Sun May 31 01:36:04 EDT 2009

Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 2) Remove article 4 of section, “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.
>> 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.

If we're going to keep the distinction between ISP and end-user then we
need to do so; we shouldn't randomly strike portions of the ISP policy
to make it the same as the end-user policy while keeping them both. I
would support removing the distinction between ISP and end-user, as
one's internet hobby has the possibility to be come something bigger.
However, a proposal to remove a pair of phrases is not it.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list