[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121
gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com
Thu Dec 9 12:00:07 EST 2010
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 17:04, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I've been asked by a fellow AC member to spend some more effort documenting
> reasons we should enact proposal 121.
> 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.
I would agree that I see no reasons that any ISP should not be
able to support their customers with legitimate requirements,
even if that customer is considered a subordinate ISP and even
if it ends up needing a /12.
Stepping back a bit, my question would be why these subordinate
ISPs are not going directly to ARIN for numbers. Is it because
of pricing (they are "small", and do not want to pay for a /32)?
Is it because of the ARIN paperwork (which I have never found
especially difficult, but my tolerances may be different)? Is it
because of a historical arrangement with their upstream which
has, essentially, provided the LIR function for them? Is it a
question of requiring subordinates to use PA space? Is it
simply that one or more of the ISPs is using an IPv4 mindset
regarding how space will/should be used? Is this about
insuring end sites get a /48? Is there something else at
I just want to be sure that this proposal will address the
(perceived or real) issues, which I am sure I do not
fully understand at this point.
More information about the ARIN-PPML