[arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM)

Keith W. Hare Keith at jcc.com
Tue Aug 9 21:34:54 EDT 2016

David, item C requests a plan “with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 years” says “a community network must demonstrate it will immediately provide sustained service to at least 100 simultaneous users and must demonstrate a plan to provide sustained service to at least 200 simultaneous users within one year.”

Seems to me that it would be easier to create a plan for 50 assignments within 5 years than demonstrate providing service to at least 100 simultaneous users immediately.

I suppose the reason no one has requested IP space under the community networks proposal could be that it seems to only apply to IPv6, and there does not yet seem to be a large end-user demand for IPv6 connectivity. Or perhaps removing the HD-ratio will simplify the community network section enough that it will get used.


From: David Huberman [mailto:daveid at panix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 9, 2016 6:09 PM
To: Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com>
Cc: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>; arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM


Which criterion in (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or (end user initial)?

Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-)

On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare <Keith at jcc.com<mailto:Keith at jcc.com>> wrote:
From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don’t see where someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network.

So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections.


Keith W. Hare
keith at jcc.com<mailto:keith at jcc.com>
JCC Consulting, Inc.
600 Newark Granville Road
P.O. Box 381
Granville, Ohio 43023 USA
Phone: +1 740-587-0157

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one;  I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself.

However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level alternatives for the community to consider;

   1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as the Draft Policy suggests;
   2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category);
   3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be deleted also;


I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft Policy does a good job doing that.  However since we need to touch the Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the current policy is not being used.  Is there some problem with it? Is it just not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested and recorded as other end user requests?

Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite.

Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written.  Also, if you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to post to PPML themselves.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Proposal to Draft Policy status:

ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:

Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at:


You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this Draft Policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:

    > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
    > Technically Sound
    > Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:


Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:



Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

Date: 26 July 2016

Problem Statement:

The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to eliminate some possible confusion.

The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user would receive under existing policy.

Policy statement:

Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows:

6.5.9 Community Network Assignments

While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them to use end-user criteria. Qualification Criteria

To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to ARIN’s satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network under section 2.11 of the NRPM. Receiving Resources

Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community networks.

Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq.

Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this policy for IPv6 resources.

Delete section 2.8 — This section is non-operative and conflicts with the definitions of utilization contained in current policies.

Delete section 2.9 — This section is no longer operative.

Delete section 6.7 — This section is no longer applicable.


Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything else

Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has been unused for several years.

However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from the NRPM.

I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board action on actual fees.

This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks policy in a way that may make it less vestigial.

Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160809/b41be396/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list