[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

Gary Buhrmaster 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
play here?

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 mailing list