[arin-ppml] IPv6 policy: limitations on registrants?

[William Herrin]

Howdy,

I didn't see any feedback on the draft policy rewriting section 6.5,
so I want to step back and solicit your opinions on what ARIN's IPv6
policies should become. I'm going to ask some questions and break them
into separate message threads so that they can be followed separately
according to your interest.


The question for this thread is: What limits, if any, should be placed
on an organization's ability to get IPv6 addresses from ARIN?

Should they have to be for use on the Internet with off-Internet uses
expected to use something like ULA? Or are off-Internet uses just as
qualified as Internet uses?

Should they have to follow an addressing plan which supports
hierarchical aggregation? Or is that a network engineering question
into which ARIN should not pry?

Should sub-sub-allocations be restricted (i.e. if an external org
needs to allocate addresses to yet another org, they have to get their
IP addresses from ARIN instead of from you)? For example, NRPM
6.5.2.1e says that any ISP customer who needs more addresses than a
/32 must get their IPv6 addresses directly from ARIN.

Should minimum allocations be set based on the registrant's IPv4
holdings? For example, NRPM 6.5.2.1g says ISPs are not allowed to have
a longer prefix than /36 unless they have no more than a single IPv4
/24.

Are there any other advisabile limits on who should be able to get
IPv6 addresses? Any existing limits that should be changed or done
away with? Your views are respectfully requested.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/