[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[David Farmer]

On 3/30/13 18:06 , Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, David Farmer wrote:
>
>> After thinking about it for a while, if we even need any policy at
>> all, we should just have a general policy describing how IPv6 block
>> can be reduced by returning only part of a block, it should probably
>> be very generic and apply to allocations and end user assignments.  It
>> might even be better if it we a separate proposal all together.
>
> Agreed, which is why the language in this proposal allows for that, and
> that was done on purpose.
>
> I don't want to see that separated to a separate policy proposal because
> it is critical to making this one function as intended.

Well, yes and no, John has already fix the operational issue, the only 
effect your proposed text would have at the moment would be to restrict 
it to the first or last blocks of the larger original block.

This raise a question for me do we really need to restrict it to the 
first or last blocks?  Personal, I'm ok with allowing the person making 
the return to have the flexibility to make choice of any contiguous and 
alined /40 out of the /32 they want.

Next, I'm thinking about a new subsection;

     6.12 Reduction or Return

     Organizations may return all or part of their allocations or
     assignments, that are not in use, to ARIN at any time with the
     following considerations;

     a. Such a return or reduction must not result in a larger number of
        blocks being held by an organization, if possible fewer blocks
        are preferred.

     b. If a whole block is not in use, the whole block should be
        returned to ARIN.

     c. If part of a block is returned; A single contiguous nibble
        alined block, no smaller than the applicable minimum block size
        allowed by policy, should be selected and retained by the
        organization.  The remainder of the original block must not be
        in use and must be returned to ARIN.  It is possible for
        multiple separate blocks to be retained from a single original
        block as long as clause (a) above is also meet.

This is very generic covering both ISP/LIR allocations and end user 
assignments.  The basic concept is that returns can't create additional 
block that will negatively impact aggregation. And with partial returns 
the retained portion must be a nibble alined and no smaller than policy 
allows.

Also, related to this I'd like to delete section 6.5.8.4 "Consolidation 
and return of separate assignments", delete the last sentence of 6.5.3 
clause (c), and add a new subsection in 6.3 "Goals of IPv6 address space 
management";

     6.3.9 Consolidation and return

     Some organization will have multiple IPv6 blocks, obtained through
     subsequent allocations or assignments where an existing block could
     not be sufficiently expanded, or through transfers (mergers and
     acquisitions).  Such organizations should consider consolidating to
     a single block, or at least minimizing the number of blocks used
     for new sub-assignments.  This should not be considered a
     recommendation for large-scale active renumbering out of blocks at
     are in use.  To the contrary, such consolidation is merely a goal
     and would likely occur over several years.  Further, it should
     primarily be achieved through attrition and other normal
     operational change.  Finally, return of a block is expected once it
     is no longer in active use.

Moving the issue of consolidation to goals cleans up the subsequent 
allocation and assignment sections.  It is intended to provide goals, 
motivation and some direction regarding why someone might want to return 
addresses.  Putting it in the goals section prevents it from being 
confused with the issues of making subsequent allocations and 
assignments or the new Reduction or Return section above.

This is why I was thinking about a separate proposal, because I think 
the consolidation issue is more closely linked to the return and 
reduction section than with the x-small and xx-small fee category issues.

What do others think?

-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================