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

Jack Bates jbates at brightok.net
Wed Dec 1 09:07:28 EST 2010

Still support.

On 11/17/2010 10:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>     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 if I'm reading it right, but 
end-users could quickly qualify under so long as they are 

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).


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list