I support the changes you have made.
This language looks like it could support most types of community
networks, from the smallest neighbor-to-neighbor links, to larger more
formal networks like the Southeast Florida Library Information Network.
The fact that the Community network definition only technically covers
IPv6 resources should not be a problem. If one were establishing a
community network today, it is clear the backbone would be IPv6 based.
With the costs involved in todays market of obtaining IPv4 resources, it
is very likely that any IPv4 connections would end up being routed thru
some kind of NAT, with the public addresses provided by the upstream(s)
being used.
For Florida, one of the largest is SEFLIN. They are still IPv4 only,
obtaining many of its resources from Florida Atlantic University. They
might simply get a block of IPv6 from FAU when they take the plunge into
dual stack. However, even a larger network like theirs could benefit from
this policy, as even a /40 would still provide growth for new users.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, David Farmer wrote:
After taking into account the discussion of ARIN-2017-8 preceding and
during ARIN 40, here are the proposed revisions for the Problem and Policy
Statements for ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks.
Note the name of the policy is being changed to account for the expansion
of the scope of policy changes beyond just the definition of a Community
Network.
Following any initial comments or suggestion I will move this forward as an
official update to the Draft Policy in a week or so.
Thanks.
-----
Problem Statement:
The Community Networks section of the NRPM has only been used once since
implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the
number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack of
feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community networks
from NRPM was met with opposition by the community. Many responded that the
definition of "community network" was too narrow, which could be the reason
for lack of uptake.
In the discussion at ARIN 40, it was clear that more than just the
definition of a community network needs to be revised and that community
networks need to have allocations and not assignments made to them.
Policy statement:
Replace section 2.11 with the following;
2.11 Community Network
*A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, for
the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the community it
services. Users of the network or other volunteers must play a primary role
in governance of the organization, other functions may be handled by either
paid staff or volunteers.*
Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;
6.5.9. Community Network *Allocations*
While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend
to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than
provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to
provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing
*community
network to receive a smaller allocation than other LIRs or commercial ISPs.*
Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;
*6.5.9.2. Allocation Size*
*Community Networks are eligible only to receive an allocation of /40 of
IPv6 resources under this section. Community Networks that wish to receive
a larger initial allocation or any subsequent allocations must qualify as a
regular LIR, see sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3 respectively. *
*6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks*
*Similar to other LIRs, Community Networks shall make reassignments to
end-users in accordance with applicable policies, in particular but not
limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. However, they shall not reallocate
resources to other organizations.*
Comments:
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:[email protected]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
===============================================
_______________________________________________
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.
