[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

[John Curran]

On Dec 8, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

> I've been asked by a fellow AC member to spend some more effort documenting
> reasons we should enact proposal 121.

Thanks Owen!

> 1.  Current IPv6 policy is being interpreted to the detriment of ISPs that
>    have subordinate ISPs. Subordinate ISPs should be able to get PA
>    space from their upstreams equivalent to what they would be able
>    to get directly from ARIN. Currently, ARIN is not allowing for the
>    possibility that an ISP would reallocate /32s (or larger) to their
>    subordinate ISPs.
> ...

It would be good to get additional community discussion on this point and 
implications, i.e. when an ISP states it will be serving subordinate ISPs 
as part of its need justification, what assumptions are considered valid 
about such subordinate ISPs?  Do any of the subordinate ISPs themselves
need allocations that allow them to serve subordinate ISPs as well, or 
require allocations for transition purposes?  

Existing practice generally is that ISPs (regardless of size) come to ARIN 
for their own IPv6 allocation, and while this is not required, the current 
policy does not provide adequate guidance for allowing larger allocations 
for ISPs that wish to have numerous ISP customers and serve as the registry 
for each.  Hence, the need for additional community discussion regarding the
issues involved.

Thank you!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN