Re: [sig-policy] prop-101-v001: Removing multihoming requirementfor IPv6
On 2/26/12 08:32 CST, David Woodgate wrote:
In contrast, the ARIN requirements - which seem to be the most stringent
of the other 4 RIRs - are (see
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six58 ):
1. Having a previously justified IPv4 end-user assignment from ARIN or
one of its predecessor registries, or;
2. Currently being IPv6 Multihomed or immediately becoming IPv6
Multihomed and using an assigned valid global AS number, or;
3. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 2000 IPv6
addresses within 12 months, or;
4. By having a network that makes active use of a minimum of 200 /64
subnets within 12 months, or;
5. By providing a reasonable technical justification indicating why
IPv6 addresses from an ISP or other LIR are unsuitable.
I did not read the discussions regarding the ARIN policy proposal
involved and therefore do not know the background to the "2000 addresses
or 200 /64s in 12 months", but I admit that for me personally they seem
to be somewhat arbitrary thresholds, especially when it seems they could
be overridden by the general "reasonable technical justification"
criterion anyway. (Would anyone from ARIN care to clarify the reasons
those thresholds were selected?)
The previous version of ARIN's IPv6 end-uesr assignment policy allowed
any network that had already or that would qualified for an IPv4
assignment using current IPv4 policy, to receive an IPv6 assignment.
This essentially created a dependency between our IPv6 policy and our
IPv4 policy. One of the stated goals of ARIN-2010-8 was to remove such
direct dependencies between the IPv6 policy on the IPv4 policy.
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.html
Therefore criteria #3 above, is essentially a restatement of the IPv4
end-user policy that requires demonstration of 50% utilization of a /20
within 12 months for a single connected end-user, that would be 2048
hosts, which was rounded down to 2000. By restating the criteria, there
is no longer a direct dependency of our IPv6 policy on our IPv4 policy.
I believe eventually we will eliminate this criteria, especially once
the associated IPv4 policy becomes irreverent, but we are not quite
there yet.
Criteria #4 from above, came from the idea that the number of hosts on a
IPv6 network may not be all that reverent of a metric for IPv6, and the
number of subnets needed for an IPv6 network is possibly a more relevant
metric. The choice of 200 subnets as the threshold was mostly
arbitrary. As I would argue the choice of /20 for IPv4 is equally
arbitrary.
The intent of including criteria #3 and #4 in addition to criteria #5
above, is to establish thresholds below which you need to provide
"reasonable technical justification" in order to receive an assignment.
Since these thresholds exist, it is implied that a "reasonable
technical justification" will need to be more that just "I don't want to
renumber". Therefore, such a justification needs an additional basis,
as discuss in the examples in the policy; infrastructure critical to the
larger society, greater impact on society beyond the simply number of
hosts involved, guaranteed address uniqueness for non-connected
networks, authoritative DNS delegation necessary for non-connected
networks, etc...
While IPv6 Multihoming is not a requirement for an end-user assignment
in ARIN policy; By including criteria #2 above, it is made clear that it
is a sufficient justification in and of itself for an end-user
assignment, regardless of any other criteria.
I hope that helps clarify the intent behind ARIN's policy.
--
===============================================
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn dot edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================