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

Tue Sep 13 10:21:38 EDT 2016

David,

I support 2016-6 and the removal of HD Ratio from the NRPM.

I believe that the policy should move forward but doesn’t address concerns that I have with Community Networks.

Rather than attempt to suggest revisions to this policy I have submitted a separate policy.

Thanks,

Kevin Blumberg

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: September 9, 2016 10:51 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

As I said originally, "I think the Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself", and now I feel there has been a good discussion regarding the rewrite of Community Networks section necessary to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio.  There seems to be community support for this Draft Policy, no one has raised any significant concerns with the text, a Staff & Legal Assessment has been posted for this Draft Policy, see the website;

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html

Therefore, my intent is to move this forward to Recommended Draft Policy status at the AC meeting next week.  This would allow it to be presented at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting in Dallas, and assuming there is continued support, it can move to Last Call following the meeting.

So, if you have any additional comments, especially any concerns with this policy, please get them out soon.

Thanks.

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:13 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu<mailto:farmer at umn.edu>> wrote:
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: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<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>
===============================================

--
===============================================
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
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20160913/891a5fd0/attachment.htm>