[arin-ppml] 2016-6 ARIN-PPML
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 21:56:46 EDT 2016
Ref:
2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy
allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category);
Is there any community support for above?
rd
On Aug 9, 2016 9:35 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml at arin.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-request at arin.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6:
Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM) (Keith W. Hare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:34:54 -0400
From: "Keith W. Hare" <Keith at jcc.com>
To: David Huberman <daveid at panix.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM)
Message-ID:
<62D20B771F8F9C4EA8AEE574FF386962ADB62F33C9 at mercury.jcc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
David,
6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan ?with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5
years?
6.5.9.1 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.
Keith
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
Keith,
Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network
qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (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@
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
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
http://www.jcc.com
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;
https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/
ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4
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.
Thanks.
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:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html
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:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
Regards,
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. 6.5.9.1 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. 6.5.9.2 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.
Comments:
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.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARI
N-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any
issues.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu<mailto:Em
ail%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>
===============================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARI
N-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any
issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20160809/b41be396/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 134, Issue 4
*****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160809/b561a35f/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list