<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I support the proposal with the exclusion of section 6.5.9.3.<div><div>I support the proposal with the inclusion of section 6.5.9.3.</div></div><div>I ask what is the purpose of section 6.5.9.3?</div><div>Is section <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">6.5.9.3</span> needed?</div><div>Is section 6.5.9.3 restricting the right thing?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Without section 6.5.9.3 the policy clearly defines a community network, </div><div>and allows what would otherwise be an LIR getting a /32 (or /36 upon request) </div><div>get instead a /40.</div><div><br></div><div>This would reduce there fees from X-small $1,000 annunally</div><div>(or upon request 2X-small $500 annually) </div><div>to 3X-small $250 annually.</div><div><br></div><div>Sounds well and good.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Section 6.5.9.3 adds a further restriction of there shall be no no re-allocations,</div><div>suggesting they cannot have a user of their space which in turn has its own users.</div><div><br></div><div>(for the record I think you can drop the text "to other organizations."</div><div>and just have "However, they shall not reallocate resources.")</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>What behavior are you intending to prevent?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Section 6.5.9.3 has two parts. </div><div><br></div><div><div>The first part says community networks are like other LIRs, they make reassignments to end-users and makes it abundantly clear that section 6.5.4 and 6.5.5 apply to community networks. I don't want anyone arguing that those sections don't apply to community networks.</div><div><br></div><div>The second part is the restriction on making reallocations. This comes back to a couple of arguments; (A.) If community networks can make reallocations, then there is no difference between them and a regular ISP/LIR, and some participants in earlier discussions were adamant there needed to be a difference between community networks and regular ISPs/LIRs. (B.) From the debate on ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs, some participants in that discussion were adamant that a /40 was too small of an allocation for an ISP, especially if that ISP was to make any reallocations. </div></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Doesn't the definition already have the required limits on behavior in the form of:</div><div><br></div><div>"A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, </div><div>for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the community it services."</div><div><br></div><div>It appears what you are preventing are the cases below. I ask is this what you</div><div>intend to prevent? and if so why? </div><div><br></div><div>Should the Colorado IPv6 cooperative be prevented from providing transit to the </div><div>Rocky Mountain Spotted IPv6 community network because they in turn assign </div><div>IPv6 addresses to community members?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>What if this is all within one community network? What if the Rocky Mountain </div><div>Spotted IPv6 community network has a part of the network that is managed by</div><div>a group in Ball Mountain community and another part is managed by a group in</div><div>Mount Lincoln. Wouldn't it make sense to re-allocate some of the Rocky Mountain </div><div>Spotted IPv6 community network's /40 to Ball Mountain community and let them </div><div>handle the assignments to users in their locale? </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Personly, I'd be fine with removing the restriction on community networks making reallocations, but I'd still want to have section 6.5.9.3 I'd rewrite is as follows;</div><div><br></div><div><b>6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Similar to other LIRs, Community Networks shall make reassignments and reallocations in accordance with applicable policies, in particular, but not limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. </b></div><div><br></div><div>What do others think should community networks be allowed to make both reassignments and reallocations, or just reassignments?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div> </div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div>
</div></div>