[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last Call

Thu Oct 29 14:14:10 EDT 2009

So then you are proposing that just because an ISP is small today, it should always and forever be stuck with the same upstream provider in an IPv6 world?

That makes it tough to negotiate better terms with that provider.

Or, even worse, if that provider pulls a Northpoint and pulls out of region or goes out of business the ISP has an even bigger problem.

Even at the risk of allocating a /32 to Jason's basement (and remember, at some point, Jason still has to pay his ARIN fees so he probably is not doing this just for grins) this seems very anti-competitive.

For these business reasons I oppose adding a requirement for multi-homing.

Jim Weyand

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 12:35 PM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: Jim Weyand; Owen DeLong; Member Services; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last Call

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:05, George, Wes E [NTK]
<Wesley.E.George at sprint.com> wrote:
>
> I support this policy as written.
>
> I'm struggling with Owen's recommended change a bit. I wasn't in favor of it at the meeting, but I'm trying to keep an open mind. I believe that the general spirit of the recommended changes is to remove as many barriers as possible to deployment of IPv6 by making it very easy to qualify for IPv6 space. I support that in principle. However, I don't understand why direct PI allocations are a requirement for networks of this size vs. simply getting PD space from an upstream. We're talking about networks which do not believe they can put together a plan that passes the red-face test that they will have 200 customers within 5 years. What drives the need for PI space in this case? Having had to personally renumber hundreds of end sites when we deprecated 6bone, I don't view having to renumber if you change providers as a barrier in a network this small (sorry). So that leaves multihoming...
> Section 6 of the NRPM has no references at all to multihoming. Perhaps that's a problem, given its prevalence in the sections on IPv4.
> I would be in support of something that adds a reference to being multihomed in the criteria as justification for PI space, rather than a reduction in the number of end sites. IPv6 address space is mindbogglingly big, so I know that talk about trying to be prudent in our use of it will largely be shouted down, but I'll say it anyway. This maybe goes a bit too far.

I like this idea.  Advance the current policy as revised and start
work on a new pp to add a multihome policy to section 6.
~Chris

>
> To ask a related question - why would big ISPs need huge blocks (/32-29 or larger) if nearly all of their downstreams can qualify for a PI block either as an end user or an LIR? If we really want nearly everyone to be able to qualify for space directly from ARIN, perhaps we should be looking to move away from the PD model entirely, and leave ISPs to allocate only infrastructure blocks and dynamic end hosts (mobile devices, homes, etc)? I'm not trying to start a discussion about routing table explosion here, so let's leave that on the sidelines for now. I'm simply asking because that's the general direction I see this going if we continue to make it easier for direct allocations from ARIN. Is that the aim?
>
> Thanks
> Wes George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Jim Weyand
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: Owen DeLong; Member Services
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last Call
>
> +1 - As a very small ISP I am sure we can say that we are planning on
> 200 or 250 IPv6 sites but the reality is more likely to be less.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:54 PM
> To: Member Services
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6 - Last
> Call
>
> I feel that we should include in this policy as it goes to the board a
> reduction in the 200 site requirement to 100 sites.  I feel that the
> community
> supported that modification in general and in the show of hands.
>
> I encourage the advisory council to consider this modification as the
> proposal comes out of last call before handing it off to the board.
>
> I encourage others present on this list to express support for this
> idea if they
> feel it should be done.
>
> Owen
> (Speaking only as an individual interested in improving policy and not
> in
> my role as a member of the AC)
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Member Services wrote:
>
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 23 October 2009 and decided to
>> send a revised version of the following draft policy to last call:
>>
>>   Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access To IPv6
>>
>> The AC met in accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process
>> which
>> requires the AC to meet within 30 days of the conclusion of the Public
>> Policy Meeting to make decisions about the draft policies that had
>> been
>> presented. The AC revised the draft. The draft policy is now limited
>> to
>> removing the IPv6 routing requirement from current policy. It does not
>> change the initial IPv6 allocation criteria. However, the AC stated
>> they
>> intend to continue to work on that issue.
>>
>> Feedback is encouraged during this last call period. All comments
>> should
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This last call will
>> expire on 13 November 2009. After last call the AC will conduct their
>> last call review.
>>
>> The draft policy text is below and available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>>
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy 2009-7
>> Open Access To IPv6
>>
>> Version/Date: 28 October 2009
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> Remove "by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated
>> address allocation" from article 3 of section 6.5.1.1
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> 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).
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel Company proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org