[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation - Last Call (text revised)

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:10 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:10 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> Draft Policy 2010-12
>> IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
>> 
>> Policy statement:
>> 
>> Modify 6.5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria. Add the following:
>> 
>> Subsequent allocations will also be considered for deployments 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 with a /24 being the maximum allowed
>> for a transition technology. Justification for these allocations will be
>> reviewed every 3 years and reclaimed if it is not in use. All such
>> allocations for transitional technology will be made from a block
>> designated for this purpose.
> 
> This is much better but I think it could still benefit from a little tweaking.
> 
> I suggest replacing "Justification...transition technology" with:
> 
> "Justification for the subsequent subnet size will be based on the
> plan and technology provided. No organization may hold more than a /24
> under this subsection."
> 
That was specifically rejected because we did not feel the need to
encumber general ISP subsequent allocations with such a restriction.
If a  non-transitional native IPv6 deployment can show a need for
a larger prefix, then, we should grant it to them.

> I'm being a little pedantic here, but the language doesn't specify
> transition technologies for allowing an additional allocation yet does
> specify transition technologies for the limit. I think it's smart not
> to limit the application to "transition technologies" but the safety
> limit should apply across the board.
> 
Nope. Specifically it should not. An ISP with more than about
12 million end sites served, each of which gets a /48 will need
more than a /24 to support that.

> The text also specifies /24 as the limit per allocation. It doesn't
> clearly stop folks from coming back for additional /24 allocations.
> 
For better or worse, the feeling was that ISPs should not be
precluded from utilizing multiple transitional technologies.

> 
> I realize this is a last call, but given the time constraints for this
> policy to be helpful, I offer these suggestions here in lieu of
> objecting to the major changes from draft to last call that would
> ordinarily recommend returning the document to discussion for the next
> meeting.
> 
I don't agree that these were major changes. They were minor
adjustments made in response to feedback from the community.

Owen