[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-159 IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

[Michael Sinatra]

On 11/21/11 17:11, Aaron Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 07:50:09PM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Aaron Hughes<aaronh at bind.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:20:42AM -0800, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>>> Is there any limit to how big such tie downs could be?
>>>
>>> Scott,
>>>
>>> There is no limit in this proposal as it is meant to work for any
>>> size provider.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind, this is for subsequent requests so it assumes they
>>> have already been approved for an initial allocation based on
>>> some assignment plan. ARIN staff is more than capable of sniffing
>>> out abusers vs those that are allocating to plan and have simply
>>> outgrown their initial allocation. There is no written limit
>>> proposed since there are folks who will tie down large amounts of
>>> space. If we were $very_large_provider and had, hypothetically,
>>> /32 tie downs in each location for (let's say) /48s for DSL/Cable
>>> customers, they would have already been approved for something
>>> like a /28 or /24, so it would not be unreasonable to request
>>> more without the % utilization IMHO.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, if they were $small_provider, had 10 regions
>>> of 1000 customers (/48s) and tied down /36s, when they reached 15
>>> regions, it would be perfectly reasonable to request an
>>> additional /32, but not a /28 or /24 without more justification
>>> than I am simply utilized to plan. (Clearly 1000/4096 is not
>>> considered utilized by current utilization definition in the NRPM
>>> and should be.)
>>>
>>> Also keep in mind we are collectively advising people to make a
>>> 10 year plan and get over the IPv4 mindset. This means we should
>>> not have to plan for all regional/groupings of tie downs to get
>>> to 80% utilization at the same time.
>>
>> I get that, and agree with the intent.  I'm only worried that
>> someone might get approved for an initial allocation (say /32), do
>> a /32 tiedown, allocate a /48 from it, request a subsequent
>> allocation, rinse, repeat.  If we can somehow make sure that the
>> policy only allows for "reasonable" tie-downs, that would address
>> my concern.
>
> I really wish we could write policy to help people rather than
> worrying about abusers of policy. This is IPv6. Anyone can write a
> plan and get some. I am sure ARIN staff can figure out a way to
> manage abuse.
>
> In the past, words such as "reasonable" have been removed from policy
> proposal text by legal and staff review due to the action being
> ambiguous. I have written this is simple, plain English with the
> intent to help out those who are living by our advice.
>
> I do not know what the proper channels are for ARIN to protect both
> ARIN and the community from abuse. Perhaps the AC and ARIN staff can
> discuss and remove the burden from the community to address abuse.
>
> Thanks for the support of the intent.

If there is a reasonable way to get a reasonableness standard 
incorporated into the policy, I would support that.  But I also support 
the proposal as-is.  I think it gives enough guidance to staff to make 
the right decision (although I appreciate any guidance that staff can 
give the policy community on giving the staff guidance :-) ).

michael