[arin-ppml] 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[Leo Vegoda]

Hi,

On 14 Sep 2010, at 12:52, David Farmer wrote:

[...]

> d. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why IPv6 
> addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
> 
> 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 can justify the need for an assignment 
> based on the fact that renumbering would have a broader than expected 
> impact than simply the number of hosts directly involved. These would 
> include: hospitals, fire fighting, police, emergency response, power or 
> energy distribution, water or waste treatment, traffic management and 
> control, etc…

I suspect it would be useful to readers of the eventual policy to also include examples of organizations that would not qualify, so that potential applicants can identify where their organization fits on the scale.

[...]

> The HD-Ratio is replaced with a simplified 75% utilization threshold 
> based on nibble boundaries for end-user assignments.   This threshold is 
> somewhat more restrictive for larger assignments, while slightly less 
> restrictive for the smaller /44 assignments, than the HD-Ratio. 
> However, in both cases it is much easier for an end-user to understand 
> the policy criteria that applies to them.

This means that a different type of measure would be applied to allocations made to ISPs and assignments made to end users. Presumably, the reason for the difference is not that end user organizations are not capable of understanding the HD-ratio concept. And anyway, if it is difficult to understand, ARIN can be asked to produce explanatory materials.

If the concept underlying the HD-ratio is fair, is it fair not to use that concept when calculating the amount of space available to an end-user organization?

Regards,

Leo Vegoda