<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Well, it is not quite true that the RIR cannot control the assignment practices of a provider.<BR>
Irresponsible...against the dictates of the RIR...assignment earns the provider a harder time receiving subsequent allocations, right?<BR>
<BR>
Still, mostly I agree with what Dan has to say here.<BR>
<BR>
Guidance, with rational should be one source of information...you SHOULD not allocated beyond the needs e.g. /56 for.../48 for etc...because...<BR>
Operational direction, should be another...e.g. this IS the way we do things....e.g. Templates, authentication, etc.<BR>
Best Practice, perhaps from third parties on aggregation or multihoming practice.<BR>
<BR>
All this could be collected and referenced(linked) where needed from within the NRPM.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Alexander, Daniel<BR>
Sent: Thu 2/15/2007 9:33 PM<BR>
To: cja@daydream.com; ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 OperationalInformationfrom NRPM<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This discussion seems to play along the same lines as the policy<BR>
proposal to remove the multiple /48 requirement. Both of these skirt<BR>
around the extent of an RIR's control.<BR>
<BR>
One thought is "These statements should be removed." This is because<BR>
ARIN should not be mandating what an ISP/LIR can allocate to it's users.<BR>
Even if it wanted to, it has little ability to enforce such a statement,<BR>
so why try and take this stance. Once an ISP/LIR obtains an allocation,<BR>
they can allocate in whatever way they feel is necessary. ARIN's main<BR>
recourse to enforce responsible use is the initial and subsequent<BR>
allocation requirements. Trying to make these kinds of demands gives<BR>
ARIN an intrusive image it can't control.<BR>
<BR>
The other thought is "These statements should remain." This is because<BR>
ARIN needs some mechanism to provide direction, in response to<BR>
organizations seeking guidance, on how to allocate responsibly, and what<BR>
is expected of them.<BR>
<BR>
It is not an issue that the information is in there, but where in the<BR>
NRPM it is placed. By having the statement in section 6.5.4 it leans<BR>
towards the first approach, trying to define how an ISP/LIR should<BR>
service it's customers.<BR>
<BR>
Policies should not be written to dictate how an ISP/LIR should conduct<BR>
it's business, but rather how the Internet community should use<BR>
resources in a responsible manner. I agree that the proposed wording in<BR>
6.5.4.1 should be removed. I agree that the proposed wording in section<BR>
6.5.4.2 should be removed. The problem is, in the absence of a clear<BR>
initial and subsequent allocation requirement, ARIN would be left with<BR>
nothing to prevent irresponsible practices.<BR>
<BR>
This is a very subtle difference but seems to be where many proposals<BR>
run into issues. As a result, these statements should remain as<BR>
guidelines, until the community is comfortable with the development of<BR>
the surrounding IPv6 policies.<BR>
<BR>
My two cents,<BR>
Dan<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
________________________________<BR>
<BR>
From: ppml-bounces@arin.net [<A HREF="mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net</A>] On Behalf Of<BR>
cja@daydream.com<BR>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:34 PM<BR>
To: ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Removal of Ipv6 Operational<BR>
Informationfrom NRPM<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi everyone,<BR>
<BR>
I would like to have some discussion here about this. For the time<BR>
being I have withdrawn this proposal. The reason is that it seems that<BR>
the information that it strikes is information that the ARIN staff uses<BR>
to help guide LIRs to assign reasonable blocks to their customers. When<BR>
an LIR assigns /40s to each of its customers just because, ARIN can<BR>
point to the guidelines as to what more reasonable assignments are. It<BR>
is pretty much a given that this information needs to exist somewhere<BR>
but it's not quite policy. I'd like your thoughts about this. <BR>
<BR>
One idea is to have a document that's like the NRPM but contains<BR>
operational guidelines for LIRs. Maybe like an NPOG (Number Policy<BR>
Operational Guidelines). <BR>
<BR>
Thanks!<BR>
----Cathy<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 2/10/07, Member Services <info@arin.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with<BR>
the ARIN<BR>
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is<BR>
being<BR>
posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being<BR>
placed on<BR>
ARIN's website.<BR>
<BR>
The AC will review this proposal and may decide to:<BR>
<BR>
1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as it is<BR>
presented;<BR>
<BR>
2. Work with the author to:<BR>
a) clarify the language or intent of the proposal;<BR>
b) divide the proposal into two (2) or more proposals; or<BR>
c) combine the proposal with other proposals; or,<BR>
<BR>
3. Not accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal.<BR>
<BR>
The AC will review this proposal at their next meeting. If the<BR>
AC<BR>
accepts the proposal, then it will be posted as a formal policy<BR>
proposal<BR>
to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting. If<BR>
the AC<BR>
does not accept the proposal, then the AC will explain that<BR>
decision;<BR>
and at that time the author may elect to use the petition<BR>
process to<BR>
advance their proposal. If the author elects not to petition or<BR>
the<BR>
petition fails, then the proposal will be closed.<BR>
<BR>
The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be<BR>
found at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html">http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html</A><BR>
<BR>
Mailing list subscription information can be found at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html">http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html</A><BR>
<<A HREF="http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html">http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html</A>><BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
Member Services<BR>
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
## * ##<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Policy Proposal Name: Removal of Ipv6 Operational Information<BR>
from NRPM<BR>
<BR>
Authors:<BR>
Lea Roberts<BR>
Cathy Aronson<BR>
<BR>
Proposal Version: Version 0<BR>
<BR>
Submission Date: 8 February 2007<BR>
<BR>
Proposal type: Modify<BR>
<BR>
Policy term: Permanent<BR>
<BR>
Policy statement:<BR>
<BR>
The following parts of Section 6.5.4.1 should be removed from<BR>
the<BR>
Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).<BR>
<BR>
NRPM Section 6.5.4.1 states:<BR>
<BR>
The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only<BR>
guidelines):<BR>
<BR>
* /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed<BR>
<BR>
* /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets<BR>
over the next 5 years.<BR>
<BR>
* /48 for larger sites<BR>
<BR>
Rationale:<BR>
<BR>
Discussions in recent public policy meetings, as well as in<BR>
Advisory<BR>
Council meetings, have led to the consensus that operational<BR>
information, such as these IPv6 guidelines, should be removed<BR>
from the<BR>
NRPM. This section is a clear example of text not directly<BR>
related to<BR>
ARIN policy and so it is proposed that it should be removed.<BR>
<BR>
Timetable for implementation: Immediate<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML mailing list<BR>
PPML@arin.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML mailing list<BR>
PPML@arin.net<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</A><BR>
<BR>
We</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>