[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

Andrew Dul andrew.dul at quark.net
Sat Jul 30 10:23:09 EDT 2016

I support this policy to cleanup the IPv6 policy and remove references
to the HD-ratio which is no longer used in this region to assign or
allocate IPv6 addresses.


On 7/26/2016 6:21 AM, ARIN wrote:
> ##########
> 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.
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-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 if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list