[arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 16:37, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 6:57 PM, owen at delong.com wrote:
>> 
>> At the time, the concept of address registration without network services by other than RIR had not occurred to me
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> Whether it occurred to you or not is immaterial.  The fact that there is an actual difference in scope between the scope of the two terms is rather important. 
> 
> ARIN does not maintain your presumed scope of the Section 6 LIR equivalence language when considering applications under NRPM Section 4.1.8 / 4.2 (“Allocations to ISPs”) — rather ARIN continues to use the community’s present “ISP” definition contained in the NRPM definitions section.   
> 
> Changing this ISP definition can indeed impact policy implementation beyond what an errata can (or should) address.   So, while that should not inhibit policy (or language) changes if sought by the community, it does highlight the need for the community be quite explicit in its desired policy outcomes.

I notice you side-stepped the key question I asked…

Does this mean that ARIN will issue IPv6 to LIR requests with a stated intent to go into the IP resource management business separate from providing connectivity services?

Unless the answer to that question is yes, then I think the correct fix is to explicitly add the appropriate limitation to the definition of LIR, which is likely editorial since it wouldn’t change staff interpretation of the policy. If the answer to that question is yes, then we do, indeed, have an (at least to me) unexpected divergence between current IPv4 and IPv6 policy and I think the community needs to make a decision on whether we wish to continue to permit IPv6 to be handed out to “Address Management Services”.

I care not whether this change ends up editorial or not, my focus is on identifying the correct changes to NRPM to get to the desired result (and, for that matter, if there is a discrepancy between the interpretation being applied to IPv6 policy and IPv4 policy, whether or not the community wishes to continue that difference or which direction to go).

In general, I personally favor prohibiting “Address Management Services” without connectivity.

Owen