[arin-ppml] Policies 2010-12 and 2010-9

[Scott Leibrand]

On Wed 7/28/2010 2:54 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
> I think that the staff concerns raised in 2010-12 are valid as they regard definition of valid transition technologies that can be used as justification, rather than simply leaving it open-ended. There are probably a couple of ways to provide additional guidance to ARIN staff, either through updates to the policy proposal itself or via AC feedback to ARIN staff
> 1) by specifically referencing the appropriate IETF RFCs (or drafts?) that are considered transition technologies along with a brief explanation of why they may require additional allocations of IPv6 space to implement, and what questions/plans ARIN staff should request when validating a submission. This would require continuing to update the policy to incorporate additional technologies as they come about.
>    

A similar approach was just introduced in APNIC 
(http://www.apnic.net/__data/assets/text_file/0004/22594/prop-087-v001.txt):

> It is proposed that:
>
> 4.1 In the IPv6 deployment phase (til 2013), networks using an IPv6
>      deployment protocol specified in an Standard track RFC are eligible
>      for initial allocations larger than a /32.
>
>      Requestors must specifically refer to the deployment protocol they
>      are using and the number of the RFC describing it.
>    

That has the same potential problem you outline below, of course:

> The problem with this would be the fact that people often implement things like this while they are still in draft form in the IETF, and the PDP may not be responsive enough to make changes as rapidly as required. It's possible that some of these uses could be treated as Section 11 Experimental and just allocate the blocks in such a way that they can be converted to normal allocations without return/renumbering once the policy is updated to cover the appropriate transition technology. Alternatively, the policy could provide a way to get provisional approval for technologies not explicitly defined in the current policy, perhaps by coupling the request for address space with a policy proposal submitted by the requestor to cover their particular use. This would provide incentive to participate in the PDP, and also ensure that any of the provisional (eg not explicitly covered by current policy) technologies are in front of the community for input as soon as is possible.
>    

That may work, except the current NRPM 11.1 text on experimental 
allocations (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#eleven) says:
> Applicants for an experimental allocation are expected to demonstrate 
> an understanding that when the experiment ends, the allocation will be 
> returned; a successful experiment may need a new allocation under 
> normal policies in order to continue in production or commercial use, 
> but will not retain the experimental allocation.
So unless we write in a policy exception to that, you couldn't count on 
keeping the same space if you converted it to a normal allocation...


-Scott