[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
David Farmer
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Feb 23 19:55:45 EST 2010
In on an off-line discussion, concerns were raised about rewriting the
Community Networks Policy so soon after this policy was adopted.
Therefore, in a final edit of this draft policy prior to Toronto, I
propose to remove 6.5.8.4 and move the current Community Networks policy
as-is from 6.5.9 to 6.5.10. This move is necessary to make room for
section 6.5.9 Subsequent assignments from this policy to immediately
follow section 6.5.8. Initial assignments.
If there are other changes that you believe should be made to this text
prior to the Toronto meeting please let me know. The text will be
frozen in early April prior to the meeting, so we have a little time,
but I would rather not wait until the last minute.
Thanks
Member Services wrote:
> Draft Policy 2010-8
> Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
>
> On 18 February 2010 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) selected "Rework of
> IPv6 assignment criteria" as a draft policy for adoption discussion on
> the PPML and at the Public Policy Meeting in Toronto in April.
>
> The draft was developed by the AC from policy proposal "107. Rework of
> IPv6 assignment criteria". Per the Policy Development Process the AC
> submitted text to ARIN for a staff and legal assessment prior to its
> selection as a draft policy. Below the draft policy is the ARIN staff
> and legal assessment, followed by the text that was submitted by the AC.
>
> Draft Policy 2010-8 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.htm
>
> You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2010-8 on the PPML prior to
> the April Public Policy Meeting. Both the discussion on the list and
> at the meeting will be used by the ARIN Advisory Council to determine
> the community consensus for adopting this as policy.
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Draft Policy 2010-8
> Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
>
> Version/Date: 23 February 2010
>
> Policy statement:
>
> 6.5.8. Initial assignments
>
> 6.5.8.1. Initial assignment size
>
> Organizations that meet at least one of the following criteria are
> eligible to receive a minimum assignment of /48. Requests for larger
> initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation,
> will be evaluated based on the number of sites and the number of subnets
> needed to support a site.
>
> Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
> with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
> necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
> subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
> individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
> subnets is used.
>
> All assignments shall be made from distinctly identified prefixes, with
> each assignment receiving a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
> Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, at its discretion, may
> assign them to other organizations at any time.
>
> Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
> use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
>
> 6.5.8.2. Criteria for initial assignment to Internet connected end-users
>
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for connecting their own
> network to the IPv6 Internet, with an intent to provide global
> reachability for the assignment within 12 months, and for addressing
> devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
> one of the following additional criteria:
>
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or
> one of its predecessor registries, or;
>
> b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6
> Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
>
> c. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
> other IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable and a plan
> detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two and five
> year periods.
>
> Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR
> may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to:
>
> • An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety
> or the functioning of society, has justification based on the fact that
> renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the
> number of hosts involved. These would include; hospitals, fire fighting,
> police, emergency response, power or energy distribution, water or waste
> treatment, traffic management and control, etc…
> • Regardless of the number of hosts involved, an organization has
> justification if renumbering would affect 1000 or more individuals
> either internal or external to the organization.
>
> 6.5.8.3 Criteria for initial assignment to non-connected networks
>
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating their own
> non-connected IPv6 network and for addressing devices directly attached
> to their network infrastructure, by meeting one of the following
> additional criteria:
>
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
> one of its predecessor registries, or;
>
> b. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why an
> assignment for a non-connected networks is necessary, including the
> intended purpose for the assignment, and describing the network
> infrastructure the assignment will be used to support. Justification
> must include why Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULA) is unsuitable
> and a plan detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two
> and five year periods.
>
> Examples of justifications for why ULA may be unsuitable include, but
> are not limited to:
>
> • The need for authoritative delegation of reverse DNS, including
> documentation way this is necessary.
> • The need for documented uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness
> provided by ULA, including documentation way this is necessary.
> • A documented need to connect with other networks connected to or not
> connected to the Internet
>
> NOTE: Organizations are encouraged to consider the use of ULA, for
> non-connected networks, see RFC 4193 for details.
>
> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
>
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
> Community Network by documenting that they meet the criteria specified
> in section 2.11. A Community Network is considered a single site and a
> larger initial assignment may only be justified based on the number of
> subnets necessary to serve the community in question.
>
> 6.5.9. Subsequent assignments
>
> Subsequent assignments may be made when the need for additional sites or
> subnets are justified with reasonable supporting documentation. When
> possible, subsequent assignments will be made from an adjacent address
> block.
>
> Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
> with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
> necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
> subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
> individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
> subnets is used.
>
> Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
> use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
>
> Delete current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as it is incorporated
> in 6.5.8.4.
>
> Rationale:
>
> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
> criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, while maintaining many
> of the basic concepts contained in the current policies. The order of
> the subsections of 6.5.8 was rearranged moving the initial assignment
> size to 6.5.8.1 and subsequent assignments to 6.5.9. This will
> facilitate adding future criteria without additional renumbering of
> current policies.
>
> The initial assignment criteria include the following general concepts:
>
> • When Internet connectivity is use to justify resources it is implied
> the resources should be advertised to the Internet, within some
> reasonable time frame after they are received.
> • IPv4 resources may be use to justify the need for IPv6 resources. •
> Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an end-user
> assignment in and of itself.
> • Other Internet connected end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR
> assignment is not sufficient for their needs.
> • Non-connected networks must describe the purpose and network
> infrastructure the assignment will be supporting, including why ULA is
> not sufficient for their needs.
> • Organizations with multiple sites are allowed to request a /48 for
> each site, with a suggestion to use /56s for smaller sites.
> • While HD-Ratio is not completely eliminated it really only applies to
> situations that an individual site of an organization needs more that a
> /48.
> • Community networks are assumed to justify an assignment in and of
> themselves, but they should be considered a single site, otherwise they
> should get an ISP allocation.
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
>
> #####
>
>
> STAFF ASSESSMENT
>
> Proposal: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
> Proposal Version (Date): 1 Feb 2010
>
> Date of Assessment: 12 Feb 2010
>
>
> 1. Proposal Summary (Staff Understanding)
>
> ARIN staff understands this policy establishes fresh criteria for
> end-users requesting /48 and larger assignments for their networks based
> on the number of sites and number of subnets needed per site. It allows
> almost all requestors to receive a /48 for a site by meeting one of the
> following three criteria: have an IPv4 end user assignment OR be
> multi-homed OR provide technical justification why upstream space will
> not suffice and a plan detailing utilization for one, two, and five
> years out. In addition, it allows non-connected (private) networks to
> get an IPv6 assignment from ARIN. Finally, it lowers the threshold for
> community networks by removing the existing criteria for an initial
> assignment.
>
> 2. Comments
>
> A. ARIN Staff Comments
>
> • The policy adds very specific criteria for assigning a site more than
> a /48. Having this specific criteria lay out such clear rules makes it
> easier for both requesters and ARIN staff to understand and provides the
> type of necessary details that have been missing from the current
> policy. (Staff understands that this policy allows an organization to
> define what a site is.)
> • 6.5.8.2 relaxes the current qualification criteria for a /48 per site
> and opens up the policy to pretty much everyone. This should
> significantly increase the number of assignments ARIN makes each year.
>
> B. ARIN General Counsel
>
> “This proposal poses no significant legal issues.”
>
>
> 3. Resource Impact
>
> This policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that
> implementation would occur within 3 months after ratification by the
> ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to
> implement:
>
> • Changes to guidelines
> • May require new template
> • Staff training
>
>
> 4. Proposal Text
>
> 6.5.8. Initial assignments
> 6.5.8.1. Initial assignment size
> Organizations that meet at least one of the following criteria are
> eligible to receive a minimum assignment of /48. Requests for larger
> initial assignments, reasonably justified with supporting documentation,
> will be evaluated based on the number of sites and the number of subnets
> needed to support a site.
> Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
> with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
> necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
> subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
> individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
> subnets is used.
> All assignments shall be made from distinctly identified prefixes, with
> each assignment receiving a reservation for growth of at least a /44.
> Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, at its discretion, may
> assign them to other organizations at any time.
> Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
> use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
> 6.5.8.2. Criteria for initial assignment to Internet connected end-users
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for connecting their own
> network to the IPv6 Internet, with an intent to provide global
> reachability for the assignment within 12 months, and for addressing
> devices directly attached to their network infrastructure, by meeting
> one of the following additional criteria:
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or
> one of its predecessor registries, or;
> b. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6
> Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
> c. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
> other IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable and a plan
> detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two and five
> year periods.
> Examples of justifications for why addresses from an ISP or other LIR
> may be unsuitable include, but are not limited to:
> • An organization that operates infrastructure critical to life safety
> or the functioning of society, has justification based on the fact that
> renumbering would have a broader than expected impact than simply the
> number of hosts involved. These would include; hospitals, fire
> fighting, police, emergency response, power or energy distribution,
> water or waste treatment, traffic management and control, etc...
> • Regardless of the number of hosts involved, an organization has
> justification if renumbering would affect 1000 or more individuals
> either internal or external to the organization.
> 6.5.8.3 Criteria for initial assignment to non-connected networks
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating their own
> non-connected IPv6 network and for addressing devices directly attached
> to their network infrastructure, by meeting one of the following
> additional criteria:
> a. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-users assignment from ARIN or
> one of its predecessor registries, or;
> b. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why an
> assignment for a non-connected networks is necessary, including the
> intended purpose for the assignment, and describing the network
> infrastructure the assignment will be used to support. Justification
> must include why Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULA) is unsuitable
> and a plan detailing the utilization of sites and subnets for one, two
> and five year periods.
> Examples of justifications for why ULA may be unsuitable include, but
> are not limited to:
> • The need for authoritative delegation of reverse DNS, including
> documentation way this is necessary.
> • The need for documented uniqueness, beyond the statistical uniqueness
> provided by ULA, including documentation way this is necessary.
> • A documented need to connect with other networks connected to or not
> connected to the Internet
> NOTE: Organizations are encouraged to consider the use of ULA, for
> non-connected networks, see RFC 4193 for details.
> 6.5.8.4 Criteria for initial assignment to Community Networks
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for operating a
> Community Network by documenting that they meet the criteria specified
> in section 2.11. A Community Network is considered a single site and a
> larger initial assignment may only be justified based on the number of
> subnets necessary to serve the community in question.
> 6.5.9. Subsequent assignments
> Subsequent assignments may be made when the need for additional sites or
> subnets are justified with reasonable supporting documentation. When
> possible, subsequent assignments will be made from an adjacent address
> block.
> Organizations may request up to a /48 for each site in their network,
> with the overall allocation rounded up to the next whole prefix only as
> necessary. A subnet plan demonstrating a utilization of 33,689 or more
> subnets within a site is necessary to justify an additional /48 for any
> individual site, beyond this the 0.94 HD-Ratio metric of the number of
> subnets is used.
> Note: Organizations with multiple sites are encouraged to consider the
> use /56s for smaller satellite sites.
> Delete current 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments as it is incorporated
> in 6.5.8.4.
>
>
> Rationale:
> This proposal provides a complete rework of the IPv6 end-user assignment
> criteria, removing the dependency on IPv4 policy, while maintaining many
> of the basic concepts contained in the current policies. The order of
> the subsections of 6.5.8 was rearranged moving the initial assignment
> size to 6.5.8.1 and subsequent assignments to 6.5.9. This will
> facilitate adding future criteria without additional renumbering of
> current policies.
> The initial assignment criteria include the following general concepts:
> • When Internet connectivity is use to justify resources it is implied
> the resources should be advertised to the Internet, within some
> reasonable time frame after they are received.
> • IPv4 resources may be use to justify the need for IPv6 resources.
> • Internet multihoming is sufficient justification for an end-user
> assignment in and of itself.
> • Other Internet connected end-users must justify why an ISP or LIR
> assignment is not sufficient for their needs.
> • Non-connected networks must describe the purpose and network
> infrastructure the assignment will be supporting, including why ULA is
> not sufficient for their needs.
> • Organizations with multiple sites are allowed to request a /48 for
> each site, with a suggestion to use /56s for smaller sites.
> • While HD-Ratio is not completely eliminated it really only applies to
> situations that an individual site of an organization needs more that a
> /48.
> • Community networks are assumed to justify an assignment in and of
> themselves, but they should be considered a single site, otherwise they
> should get an ISP allocation.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list