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

[David Farmer]

On 4/4/13 13:31 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:15 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> Part 2: Add a new subsection to section 6 "IPv6";
>>
>> 6.12 Reduction or Return
>>
>> ARIN will accept the return of whole or partial block(s) allowing an
>> organization to reduce their holdings as long as:
>>
>> a. The end result is not an increase in the number of non-contiguous blocks
>> held by the organization.

OK, how about?

a. The end result is not an increase in the number of aggregatable 
blocks held by the organization.

> Hi David,
>
> CIDR blocks or aggregable blocks. 10.0.0.0-10.11.12.13 is a contiguous
> block but it doesn't _aggregate_ for routing purposes per NRPM 6.3.4.
>
>
>> b. Whole blocks are returned to the extent practicable.
>
> I liked the original language in the proposal which was along the
> lines of: "the aggregate retained must be either the first (lowest
> numbered) subnet or the last (highest numbered) subnet of the original
> allocation."
>
> I see Owen's point but when the time eventually arrives that we have
> to think about allocating the space in these reserved areas, I'd
> rather that space be less fragmented than more. Anyone who doesn't
> have a /32 yet can read the policy and figure out what they need to do
> if they want to be able to shed cost. And anyone who already has their
> /32... thank you. But seriously, show of hands, which of you wants to
> return the start and end of your /32 and keep only a chunk in the
> middle somewhere?

It all depends where they started using there blocks.  The current use 
case for this policy is to reduce your holding because of the fee 
schedule, but I'd prefer generic rules that allow flexibility for future 
conditions.  Also, this is the current operational practice we have now, 
to allow the LIR to select which /36 to retain.  If someone started 
using their /32 in the middle why force them to renumber?

How do others feel, I was planning to bring this up as a discussion 
point in the Barbados meeting.  Unless a number of others chime in, I'll 
go with the current language for the Barbados meeting.  This policy has 
to come back for another consultation so we have plenty of time to 
change it to what you are talking about if there is consensus for it.

Thanks
-- 
================================================
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
================================================