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

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 1, 2010, at 6:07 AM, Jack Bates wrote:

> 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.
> 
Not at all... An organization which meets both criteria can choose whether they prefer to apply as an ISP or as an end user.
An end-user organization cannot make any reassignments. Any organization which is making reassignments to customers
is an ISP (or LIR).

> 
> 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).
> 
In reality, why would they want to be? There's no advantage to being an ISP vs. an end-user organization. All it does is raise your fees.

Owen