Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 February 2002 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees

Council Members:

• Alec Peterson, Chairman
• John Brown
• Bill Darte
• Avi Freedman
• Sanford H. George
• Mark Kosters
• Dawn Martin
• Kevin Martin
• Ron Roberts
• Barbara Roseman
• Ron da Silva
• John Sweeting
• Cathy Wittbrodt

Guests:

• Ray Plzak, ARIN President
• Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Director of Operations
• Thérèse Colosi, ARIN Recording Secretary

Apologies:

None

Absent:

• lyric apted
• Jeremy Porter

Agenda

1. Election of Chairperson.
2. Discussion of the IPv6 allocation policy.

Action Item

AC to review revised policy language to Policy Proposal 2001-2: “/24 Reassignments for Multi-homing” and revised language of Policy Proposal 2001-6: “Multiple Aggregation Point”.

Advisory Council Chairman Alec Peterson called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Roll call attendance was taken. The agenda was reviewed and adopted.

The action item for the AC to review the revised policy language to Policy Proposal 2001-2: “/24 Reassignments for Multi-homing” and, the revised language of Policy Proposal 2001-6: “Multiple Aggregation Point” was addressed by Ray Plzak. The AC was reminded that the language had gone to the ARIN Board of Trustees for ratification. As a courtesy, the Board requested the AC’s review of the language before ratifying the revisions. Mr. Plzak remarked that there were no substantive changes to the language. The procedural language of Policy Proposal 2001-6 was removed from the policy itself, but would remain on the website. Alec Peterson suggested that the AC review the revised language and vote by email. Ray Plzak requested that it be done by noon the day after this call, in order to resolve this item in time for the next ARIN Board meeting. All agreed to post their responses to the email list by this given deadline.

Election of Chairperson

Nominees for Chairperson were called via prior email. The nominees proposed were Alec Peterson and Cathy Wittbrodt. Alec Peterson called for any more nominations. Bill Darte responded nominating Barbara Roseman. Due to other commitments, Barbara declined the nomination. Cathy Wittbrodt asked Alec if he wanted to continue as Chairperson. Alec responded that he would. Cathy then withdrew from the nomination. Roll call was taken to put to vote Alec Peterson as Chairperson. All members present voted affirmatively.

IPv6 Allocation Policy Discussion

The Chair asked that Barbara or Cathy to lead this discussion. Ray asked that the AC subscribe to the email list and watch the discussion as it progresses in the community. The Chair then asked for a summarization of the discussion as it currently stands.

Cathy explained that the discussion began on the list after the RIPE 42 meeting in January, where it was discussed in the LIR working group that an entity didn’t need criteria to be given a /32 as long as it was an LIR and paid the fee. She stated that this was exactly the opposite of what is desired, and so ensued the discussion on the list. If RIPE agrees to this decision, then the policy needs to be changed. Barbara Roseman also commented that at the RIPE meeting, the argument to encourage the adoption of IPv6 policy failed to make clear that under the proposed policy, anyone with a /4 allocation was eligible for a /6 without justification. People at the meeting were confused and thought they would have to re-apply to obtain /6. Cathy agreed that this was not made clear at all. She stated that in the meeting, she explained not to change the document because it would not achieve consensus in other regions. The fact that the guidelines were too loose also came up during that meeting.

Barbara Roseman commented that this decision, if made, is in the opposite direction than what was put in place for IPv4 allocation. RIPE standardized a policy for v4 and is not for v6.

Richard Jimmerson read his notes from the meeting. He stated that the slides describing the proposed IPv6 policy as they were presented to the attendees of the meeting may not have provided enough detail and explanation. He felt that the attendees of the meeting may not have read the proposal document before attending the meeting and therefore did not come away recognizing the strengths of the proposal when only presented with a summary of the entire document at the meeting. After hearing the attendees propose any organization may receive a /32 if they chose to become a LIR with at least a single infrastructure requirement, Richard asked the following clarifying questions during the session:

Would any LIR qualify for the /32? The answer from the group was yes, if they have at least a single infrastructure requirement.

What are the requirements to become a LIR? The answer was that any entity who wished to become a LIR may become one if they sign the membership agreement and pay their fees.

May end-users become a LIR? The answer was that they were not disqualified from becoming an LIR, as any entity may become one.

Have the implications this proposal has on the routing tables been considered? The answer was that many multihomed end-users are injecting more specific (/24) announcements into the table in IPv4 anyway.

Will this policy allow an entity with only a /48 requirement to obtain a /32? The answer was yes, but that it was okay since they may use more in the future. It was also suggested that the RIR could “take back” space from an entity in the future, if needed, but no mechanism was proposed on how to do this.

The Chair interjected that there are many people who are concerned with the current direction that this policy discussion is taking, and asked what could be done. Cathy suggested a straw man proposal be developed consisting of a compromise that other regions would vote for. Ray Plzak commented that a big part of the discussion at the RIPE meeting was opposition to the 776 customers an entity would need in order to obtain a /32. It is currently written that entities that do not already have IPv4 networks, only IPv6, have to have 776 sites for /48 reassignment to receive allocation from a registry. There is a lot of objection to this as it stands. He stated that 776 customers is much more of a restriction than general policy. People would probably be happy if that number was changed.

Barbara Roseman then commented that it would be useful to have a draft straw man proposal from ARIN that could be presented at the upcoming ARIN meeting in April. It could be addressed at the upcoming APNIC meeting in March beforehand. Richard commented that the APNIC region is very anxious for new policy and thought it was a good idea. He explained that the way they ratify a policy is to discuss it during a policy SIG and vote on it at member’s meetings. Barbara agreed that at the APNIC meeting it would be the best opportunity for getting support in shaping a global policy. She noted that APNIC wants some kind of criteria, and was not happy at RIPE meeting.

Richard mentioned that Arano San is chairing the IPv6 discussion at the APNIC meeting and that he recognizes the value of putting a new policy into place.

Ray Plzak pointed out that reference to “global policy” should be made to say that the policy would be global in scope, but implemented regionally.

Barbara then asked Cathy if she could work on proposal. Cathy asked if the proposal that Arano San was working on could be read. Richard volunteered to liaison between the AC and Thomas Narten, explaining that Thomas had editorial control of that proposal since he and Arano San and David Kessens were drafting it. Richard commented that Thomas may have something almost completed, and that he too was trying to attend APNIC in March. Cathy said she would contact Thomas directly via email.

Ray stated that he thought it would be a good idea that whatever Cathy and Thomas discuss comes back to the list. Cathy suggested that any discussion should go onto the global v6 list. She said she would email Thomas and copy the AC to keep everyone updated. She also said that the AC can sign up for the IPv6 list by going to list.apnic.net on the APNIC website. Ray Plzak again encouraged all to sign up to this list.

The Chair then asked if there were any further comments on this issue. There were no further comments.

Cathy then asked if the AC could have another telephonic meeting between now and the ARIN IX meeting in March. All present agreed to have another telephonic meeting to discuss the straw man proposal on Wednesday, March 27th 5:00 p.m. EST.

Adjournment

John Brown moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 pm. Cathy Wittbrodt seconded the motion, which was then passed by unanimous vote.