[arin-ppml] 2008-3 Support

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> I strongly believe that ARIN's v6 allocation policies should 
> be flexible and open enough to allow organizations like 
> Joshua's to qualify for a v6 application - simply because 
> they want one, not because they "need" one according to some 
> v4-world definition of "need." 

On this I don't fully agree. I don't think that "wanting" an IPv6
allocation is sufficient. There is an IPv6 addressing model which
is based on the finite size of the IPv6 address space. It allows
for nearly limitless growth at several levels of the model, for
instance a /64 per subnet, and a /48 per site. But at the network
provider level, the supply of /32s is somewhat more limited. Here
we want to restrict /32s to those organizations that provide
interconnect
services to many other networks/sites as a major part of their
business model. Universities do this, ISPs do this, even the IT
department
of some geographically diverse companies do this. So there is
a form of "need" here although it would be defined quite differently
from the v4-world definition of need.

> I would be very concerned, 
> however, about the prospect of complicating v6 allocation 
> policies with a welter of special policies around specific 
> merit claims. 

I agree with this 100%.

Note that Joshua's organization can easily get IPv6 addresses
by buying service from an ISP that has an IPv6 allocation. 
The ISP doesn't have to have native IPv6 services in order
to get an allocation and assign addresses. If Joshua's organization
is an early adopter, they should be able to build an ISP relationship
on that basis because it is to the ISP's benefit to work together
with other IPv6 early adopters.

In addition, Joshua's organization could get IPv6 addresses from 
an IPv6 tunnel provider such as Hurricane Electric. In both cases,
these are not portable addresses and would require renumbering
if Joshua switches ISPs or tunnel providers. But since IPv6 is
designed to make renumbering much simpler than on IPv4, this does
not seem like enough hardship to deserve a special policy. 

> A simpler and more concrete way of saying this is that it 
> makes a lot more sense, in the larger scheme of things, for 
> Joshua to ask people for donations of $165/mo. to pay an ISP 
> or to support them through the regular ARIN process than it 
> does to structurally revise allocations policy in order to 
> cater to merit claimants. 

Yes. All of these community network organizations rely on the goodwill
of their community to exist. If IPv6 addresses are needed, then they
should seek the support for that within their community. If renumbering
an IPv6 network is needed, similarly they should seek support for that
within their community. ARIN is not the right place, given that ARIN
is an international organization providing number allocations to LIRs
in several countries. 

> I do think, however, that this experience ought to prompt 
> ARIN to consider more carefully what it means by "need" for 
> addresses in the v6 environment. 

Yes, I agree, and I think that all of us should consider this
issue, especially in light of the IPv6 addressing framework,
its current design, and the historical path by which it got
to that design.

--Michael Dillon