[arin-ppml] Why should we do Proposal 121

[Owen DeLong]

On Dec 9, 2010, at 9:00 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:

> 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> 
>> 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)?

Could be any number of reasons. Could be pricing. Could be that
since they are single-homed to the upstream ISP, they prefer to
preserve aggregation by using PA space. Could be the nature of
the business relationship they have with the upstream ISP.
Bottom line, it is not for ARIN to define these relationships. They
should be up to the ISPs.

> 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?
> 
It could be any one or any combination of these or other factors.
Is it actually relevant?

> 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.
> 
At the very least, this proposal creates a single consistent policy
for ISPs and also makes the subordinate end user policy identical
to ARIN end user policy. I think this is desirable and improves
on the current situation.

We can always make changes to the consistent policy if we find
that it needs further tweaking, but, at least making things consistent
at this point is worth while.

Owen