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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:59 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 4/2/13 19:58 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 2013, at 16:24 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> I think this vastly overcomplicates what should be relatively simple...
>> 
>> How about this:
>> 
>> 6.12 Reduction or Return
>> 
>> 	ARIN will accept any return which allows an LIR to reduce their
>> 	holdings to fit a lower tier in the fee schedule so long as:
>> 
>> 	1.	The end result is not an increase in the number of
>> 		non-contiguous blocks held by the LIR.
>> 
>> 	2.	Whole blocks are returned to the extent practicable.
>> 
>> 	3.	Retained block(s) are within the largest reserved space
>> 		set aside for the LIR in the ARIN database to the extent
>> 		practicable.
>> 
>> I think it is better to express directly what it is that we want to happen
>> in general terms and trust that ARIN and the LIRs will generally find
>> a way to do the right thing so long as we do not prevent them from
>> doing so.
> 
> First, my intent was to use "organization" rather than "LIR" as I wanted it to be general and apply to both LIRs and end users, that is also why I moved it out to 6.12.  Do you believe only LIR might wnat to reduce their holdings?  You were advocating that end user annual fee be scaled to holding too, do you want to change the policy when that happens?  Let keep it general and use "organization"
> 
s/LIR/organization/g is fine by me.

I believe that only LIRs can reduce their charge tier by returning partial blocks. To save money an end-user would have to return an entire block and that's already permitted by existing policy elsewhere.

> Second, in your #3, what do the retained block(s) have to do with the reserved space?  The retained block(s) are the block(s) kept by the organization and the reserved space is an ARIN operational issue.  I believe we want the retained block(s) nibble aligned and no smaller than allowed by policy, /40 for an LIR and /48 for an end user.  However, it would be better not to specify the minimums and get as a reference to applicable policy.

That's fine, but orthogonal to #3. My intent is to make sure that if they expand back to larger, their existing retained blocks are not from disparate reservations scattered throughout IPv6 and rather that they can expand into their single reservation. At least to the extent practicable.

> Do you want to allow non-nibble alined blocks to be retained?  If you do then why not just allocate them in the first place.

No. I figured existing policy pretty well covered that elsewhere, but I'm happy to add that provision.

How about:
	4.	All retained blocks shall fall on nibble-aligned boundaries.

Owen
>