[arin-ppml] I Oppose 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

Azinger, Marla Marla.Azinger at FTR.com
Sun Oct 3 10:48:37 EDT 2010

Bill or anyone else that sees this as a missing value-

What text would you suggest to resolve what you see as a missing value? 

Thank you

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:28 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] I Oppose 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

>Draft Policy 2010-12
>IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
>Version/Date: 20 July 2010
>Policy statement:
>Modify Subsequent allocation criteria. ADD the following
>sentence: Subsequent allocations will also be considered for 
>transitional technologies that cannot be accommodated by, nor were 
>accounted for, under the initial allocation.
>Justification for the subsequent subnet size will be based on the plan 
>and technology provided. Justification for these allocations will be 
>reviewed every 3 years and reclaimed if it is not in use. Requester 
>will be exempt from returning all or a portion of the address space if 
>they can show justification for need of this allocation for other 
>IPv6 addressing requirements be it Native V6 or some other V6 network 

After careful consideration, I OPPOSE draft policy 2010-12 as written.
Although I agree in principle that subsequent IPv6 allocations at this early stage should be driven more by recognized addressing needs than competent consumption of the prior allocation, this particular proposal needs more work.

2010-12 offers no guidance as to how ARIN staff is supposed to sort reasonable requests for transition addresses from unreasonable ones.
Indeed, as written a small ISP with a pair of /20 IPv4 allocations could request a /15 of IPv6 addresses for the purpose of hanging a /48 off each of their IPv4 address using 32-bit mapped 6rd in one /16 with a second /16 left over for native IPv6. No language in the resulting ARIN policy would suggest that such an enormous request is in any respect improper. Indeed, the policy would fail to support ARIN staff attempting to deny such a request.

Accordingly, I can not support proposal 2010-12 until it has been rewritten in a form that offers guidance to staff as to how requests are to be evaluated and places appropriately conservative safeguards on the both the number of subsequent allocations and the raw count of allocable addresses.

Bill Herrin

William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list