<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">David summarized my views on the matter rather well. I am adamantly opposed to trying to make reallocations out of /40 (or longer) prefixes.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Really, a /40 is 256 /48s. Any rational reallocation would be at least a /44. Is anyone really in need of running an ISP with only 16 /48s?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’d rather see any such ISP that is subordinate to a community network (if such a construct exists) get their space directly from ARIN under this same policy than see us daisy chaining community networks through micro-allocations in IPv6.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m operating under the assumption that any ISP that has a subordinate ISP that isn’t a community network isn’t really a community network, though I suppose it might be possible under the proposed rules to engineer such a thing if one tried hard enough. Nonetheless, I would argue that such a construct is a clear violation of the spirit of the policy even if you found a way to do it within the proverbial letter of the law.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 16, 2018, at 12:57 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Jason Schiller <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" class="">jschiller@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><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" class="">I support the proposal with the exclusion of section 6.5.9.3.<div class=""><div class="">I support the proposal with the inclusion of section 6.5.9.3.</div></div><div class="">I ask what is the purpose of section 6.5.9.3?</div><div class="">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" class="">6.5.9.3</span> needed?</div><div class="">Is section 6.5.9.3 restricting the right thing?<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Without section 6.5.9.3 the policy clearly defines a community network, </div><div class="">and allows what would otherwise be an LIR getting a /32 (or /36 upon request) </div><div class="">get instead a /40.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This would reduce there fees from X-small $1,000 annunally</div><div class="">(or upon request 2X-small $500 annually) </div><div class="">to 3X-small $250 annually.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Sounds well and good.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Section 6.5.9.3 adds a further restriction of there shall be no no re-allocations,</div><div class="">suggesting they cannot have a user of their space which in turn has its own users.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(for the record I think you can drop the text "to other organizations."</div><div class="">and just have "However, they shall not reallocate resources.")</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What behavior are you intending to prevent?</div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">Section 6.5.9.3 has two parts. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 class=""><br class=""></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" class=""><div class="">Doesn't the definition already have the required limits on behavior in the form of:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">"A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, </div><div class="">for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the community it services."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It appears what you are preventing are the cases below. I ask is this what you</div><div class="">intend to prevent? and if so why? </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Should the Colorado IPv6 cooperative be prevented from providing transit to the </div><div class="">Rocky Mountain Spotted IPv6 community network because they in turn assign </div><div class="">IPv6 addresses to community members?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What if this is all within one community network? What if the Rocky Mountain </div><div class="">Spotted IPv6 community network has a part of the network that is managed by</div><div class="">a group in Ball Mountain community and another part is managed by a group in</div><div class="">Mount Lincoln. Wouldn't it make sense to re-allocate some of the Rocky Mountain </div><div class="">Spotted IPv6 community network's /40 to Ball Mountain community and let them </div><div class="">handle the assignments to users in their locale? </div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><b class="">6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks</b></div><div class=""><b class=""><br class=""></b></div><div class=""><b class="">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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What do others think should community networks be allowed to make both reassignments and reallocations, or just reassignments?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""> </div></div>-- <br class=""><div class="gmail_signature">===============================================<br class="">David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" class="">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br class="">Networking & Telecommunication Services<br class="">Office of Information Technology<br class="">University of Minnesota <br class="">2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br class="">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br class="">=============================================== </div>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" class="">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>