> On Sep 24, 2015, at 12:37 , John Springer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi PPML,
> 
> There have been a number of public discussions regarding the ins and outs of 
> IPV6 subnet allocation. One such starts here:
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-October/070339.html
> 
> My recollection of the outcomes of these discussions is a sort of rough 
> consensus that /48 is a good idea and indeed, many of the calculations used 
> to evaluate what size of V6 block an org should request, start with that 
> assumtion.
> 
> ARIN (speaking as myself, not a member of any group and roughly paraphrasing 
> someone more authoritative than I) does not dictate what you do with 
> addresses after the allocation has been received. In some cases, ARIN looks 
> at what you do with addresses when you come back for more and might not give 
> them to you depending on what choices you have made.
> 
> That is what this Draft Proposal seeks to do.
> 
> I think it is clear that we can do that. Should we?
> 
> And if you have an opinion of no, are you able to say because it is 
> technically unsound or unfair and partial?

This isn’t really necessary, John. A proposal must be fair, technically sound, 
and have support of the community in order to be adopted.

Just because it is technically sound and/or fair does not mean that the 
community must support it.

People are free to reject a policy for any reason, though I admit a bias in 
favor of at least some rationale for rejection.

Owen

> 
> John Springer
> 
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, ARIN wrote:
> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
>> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>> 
>> On 17 September 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-224 
>> Minimum IPv6 Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_10.html
>> 
>> You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your concerns of Draft
>> Policy 2015-10 on the Public Policy Mailing List.
>> 
>> The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
>> of this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource
>> Policy as stated in the PDP. Specifically, these principles are:
>> 
>>  * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>  * Technically Sound
>>  * Supported by the Community
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>> 
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> 
>> 
>> ## * ##
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
>> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>> 
>> Date: 23 September 2015
>> 
>> Problem Statement:
>> 
>> ISPs may believe that they have an incentive to obtain smaller blocks than 
>> they really need, and once they receive their allocation may subsequently 
>> issue blocks smaller than their customers may need in the future. This 
>> policy seeks to encourage the correct behavior by reiterating the smallest 
>> reasonable sub-allocation size and by discounting any space which has been 
>> subdivided more finely from any future utilization analysis.
>> 
>> Policy statement:
>> 
>> Modify section 2.15 from "When applied to IPv6 policies, the term "provider 
>> assignment unit" shall mean the prefix of the smallest block a given ISP 
>> assigns to end sites (recommended /48)." to "When applied to IPv6 policies, 
>> the term "provider assignment unit" shall mean the prefix of the smallest 
>> block a given ISP assigns to end sites. A /48 is recommended as this 
>> smallest block size. In no case shall a provider assignment unit for the 
>> purpose of this policy be smaller than /56."
>> 
>> Modify section 2.16.1 from "A provider assignment unit shall be considered 
>> fully utilized when it is assigned to an end-site" to "A provider assignment 
>> unit shall be considered fully utilized when it is assigned in full (or as 
>> part of a larger aggregate) to a single end-site. If a provider assignment 
>> unit (which shall be no smaller than /56) is split and assigned to multiple 
>> end-sites that entire provider assignment unit shall be considered NOT 
>> utilized."
>> 
>> Comments:
>> Timetable for implementation: IMMEDIATE
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.

Reply via email to