[arin-ppml] Inital ISP IPv6 Allocation Policy Question

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:38 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 21, 2012, at 5:11 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
>> 
>>> I wanted to get some feedback from the community on the following section of the NRPM.
>>> 
>>> 6.5.2.2. Qualifications
>>> 
>>> An organization qualifies for an allocation under this policy if they meet any of the following criteria:
>>> 1. Have a previously justified IPv4 ISP allocation from ARIN or one of its predecessor registries or can qualify for an IPv4 ISP allocation under current criteria.
>>> 
>>> In my mind this text would allow for ARIN, to setup a fast track button on ARIN online, to give an existing IPv4 member a new allocation without any
>>> further justification. Is that how other's read this text, is there any other text that you believe would contradict my statement?
>>> 
>> 
>> Sort of yes and sort of no. They would still need to evaluate their IPv6 need in terms of determining a prefix size if the provider wanted something other than a /32. Since most providers will likely need something larger than a  /32, I'm not a big fan of the idea of setting up an APNIC-Like Easy IPv6 "Push here for a /32" button.
>> 
> 
> With a big fat warning button?  Maybe if they have v4 prefix > x they
> get a warning to strongly consider requesting a larger v6 block and
> not using the easy button.
> 
> The potential downside is that a lot of folks have multiple org
> id's/accounts - and may end up getting multiple v6 blocks when it
> might not be necessary.  No need to replicate the shortcomings of v4
> subnetting/design into v6.
> 

Which is why I believe that the process is as easy as it needs to be. I really don't think that the process is keeping anyone from deploying IPv6 at this point. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would very much like to hear a more detailed explanation of how that is.

Owen