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

Brian Jones bjones at vt.edu
Wed Nov 2 14:21:42 EDT 2016


Support.


>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:13:03PM -0400, ARIN wrote:
> > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to send
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM to
> Last
> > Call:
> >
> > The AC provided the following statement to the community:
> >
> > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> > policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the
> NRPM.
> > According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with
> > current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have
> been
> > raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML. During the
> Public
> > Policy Meeting at ARIN 38 in Dallas, a concern was raised regarding the
> > inclusion of comments on the fee structure in the policy statement. To
> > address this issue an editorial change has been made while sending the
> > policy to Last Call, removing the following unnecessary text from the
> > proposed section 6.5.9.2, "(both policy and fee structure) unless or
> until
> > the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for community
> > networks."
> >
> > Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
> be
> > provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. This Last Call will expire
> on 9
> > November 2016. After Last Call, the AC will conduct their Last Call
> review.
> >
> > The full text is below and available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
> >
> > The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Communications and Member Services
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> >
> >
> >
> > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
> >
> > AC's assessment of conformance with the Principles of Internet Number
> > Resource Policy:
> >
> > This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number
> > policy by reducing any confusion caused by HD-Ratio remaining in the
> NRPM.
> > According to the staff and legal assessment, these changes align with
> > current practice of ARIN staff. There is support and no concerns have
> been
> > raised by the community regarding this proposal on PPML.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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).
> > 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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20161102/c1b67c09/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list