[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[David Farmer]

William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
> 
> As I read it, these are the main things accomplished by proposal 107:
> 
> 1. Multihomed organizations now qualify for an ARIN /48 based solely
> on the fact that they're multihomed. This corrects the serious
> technical flaw in current policy where no IPv6 equivalent of NRPM
> 4.2.3.6 is usable in IPv6 for any practical definition of "usable."
> 
> 2. Provides explicit address assignments for non-connected networks,
> supplementing ULA.
> 
> 3. Removes the hard dependency on IPv4 policy for determining
> qualification for IPv6 end-user assignments by spelling out all the
> other reasonable criteria for qualification.
> 
> What did I miss?

Those are what I intended.  I would like to find a replacement for 
HD-Ratios too.  But I haven't figured that out just yet and I'm not sure 
I'll be able to figure that our in time to make Toronto, besides very 
large proposal that change many different part of policy don't have a 
very good track record.

> I offer the following comments:
> 
> 1. Proposal 106 is superior to and incompatible with proposal 107. I
> strongly prefer proposal 106.

In some ways I agree with you and in other ways I disagree, but I have 
yet to decide if I prefer the direction of 106 to 107.  But, I am by no 
means opposed to 106, I just think we need to consider all the options 
and pick the best one after considering all the implications.

> 2. I'm concerned about assignments to non-connected networks where
> qualification is based on the promise that they won't ever connect to
> the Internet and therefore won't introduce a route into the IPv6
> backbone. If the promise is meant to be kept, I don't think such
> assignments should be made from address blocks within 2000::/3.
> 2000::/3 is intended to be the block used on the public Internet.
> 
> Can ARIN readily acquire an address block outside of 2000::/3 for
> these assignments? Or perhaps assert a non-binding registry over a
> 32-bit section of ULA space?
> 
> Let me be clear: I do not object to the use of 2000::/3 space for
> non-connected networks. I'm only concerned about the non-connectedness
> of a network qualifying its registrant for 2000::/3 addresses for
> which it would not otherwise qualify. I worry that will either lead to
> an end-run around the qualifications analysis for routed space or
> result in such a stringent review and high cost as to render the
> process useless for the non-connected networks which need addresses.
> Either result is a failure.
> 
> I agree in principle with a registry for non-connected networks. ULA's
> statistical collision avoidance is not as effective as it appears.

I understand the concern, I share it, I am open to suggestions.  But, I 
believe that not providing resources to non-connected networks is a 
bigger risk for the successful transition to IPv6 than the risk of an 
end-run that this creates.

How I was attempting to deal with this was to make the criteria for 
6.5.8.2.c to be comparable, if not easier, to 6.5.8.3.b.  If it is about 
the same amount of work or slightly easier to justify a single connected 
/48 as a non-connected /48 then why would you try to game the system?

Suggestion or thoughts here would be greatly appreciated.

> 3. I observe that advancing proposal 107 in parallel with 106 would
> avoid the potentially Faustian bargain of only correcting current IPv6
> policy's obvious failings if folks also accept innovations like pools
> of fixed-netmask assignments.

This is exactly why I proposed this, I defiantly perceive the need for 
and support within the community for some major changes to IPv6 policy. 
  My intent is for 106, 107 and a modified version of 101 to advance to 
Draft Policy to be discussed for adoption at Toronto.  I'm working with 
Chris the original author of 101, Cathy and Bill as the AC shepherds for 
that proposal to get some new text out for allocation, in the spirit of 
107. But, what actually happens is up to the whole AC.

The AC really needs to here from the community on these issues so please 
let us know is you support any of these proposals, and what you want the 
AC to prepare for consideration at Toronto, etc...

> If the proposed 6.5.8.3 can be corrected and only if proposal 106
> fails to achieve consensus, I will support proposal 107.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin

It is just about time for me to watch the beginning of the Vikings Game, 
GO VIKINGS!!!

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================