[arin-ppml] Sensible IPv6 Allocation Policies - Rev 0.8 (PP 121)

[Jack Bates]

Still support.

On 11/17/2010 10:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> 6.5.2.2     Qualifications
>
>> An organization qualifies for an allocation under this policy if
>
>> they meet any of the following criteria:
>
>> (a)   Have a previously justified IPv4 ISP allocation from ARIN
>
>> or one of its predecessor registries or can qualify for an IPv4
>> ISP
>
>> allocation under current criteria.
>
>> (b)   Are currently multihomed for IPv6 or will immediately
>
>> become multihomed for IPv6 using a valid assigned global AS
>> number.
>
>> (c)   Provide ARIN a reasonable technical justification,
>
>> indicating why an allocation is necessary, including the intended
>
>> purposes for the allocation, and describing the network
>> infrastructure
>
>> the allocation will be used to support. Justification must include
>> a
>
>> plan detailing assignments to other organizations or customers for
>> one,
>
>> two and five year periods, with a minimum of 50 assignments within
>> 5
>
>> years.


I have a concern that NRPM 4.2.2 IPv4 has a huge criteria for defining 
what an ISP is, where this section is extremely small. In particular, 
section b allows any multi-homed customer to be considered an ISP, which 
seems to override end-user assignment criteria. Is this really what we 
want? Would it not be simpler to define a minimum number of end sites 
which will be assigned to constitute an ISP? Any sized service provider 
could easily qualify under 6.5.5.2c if I'm reading it right, but 
end-users could quickly qualify under 6.5.5.2b so long as they are 
multihomed.


I'm a strong believer of allowing even the smallest ISPs to become an 
ISP with v6 (ie, supporting their right for a /32, /36 even from another 
ISP). I disagree with allowing a single site hosting a few private 
servers which are multihomed to be added to the ISP criteria (blocklist 
operators, spammers, and many others will fall under this criteria).


Jack