Subject: Re: Fwd: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction

From: "Steve Bertrand" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:48:07 -0400 (EDT)

> IMNSHO Brian Dickson's case doesn't hold water. If ISPs are using
> careless allocation techniques and thereby wasting space, I don't
> think that should be fixed by depriving IPv6 users of their normal /48
> or possibly /56 assignments for small sites. We didn't expand the
> address space to allow ISPs to become sloppy at the expense of users.
> We expanded
> it to relieve pressure on both ISPs and users.
>
> Let's not forget basics. /48 is 65536 times bigger than the raw IPv4
> address space. Just how *bad* at allocation do we have to be to run out
> of /48s???

All of this bickering is kind of silly IMHO.

This thread started with someone proposing a 'policy' as to how an ISP
slice up their address space to assign to clients. One of the first
few sentences of said policy proposal was thus:

"The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only guidelines)"

Now, I will be happy when someone can explain how this should not be
drafted into a Best Common Practice or other similar document instead
of a proposal for policy.

Two issues I have here (the way I see it):

- guidelines, no matter how tightly written can not be enforced as
policy, as they are just that...guidelines

- if a policy is 'enforced' on me, I am going to squeeze the
'guidelines' to the limit as best I see fit

Is there not too much gray area when composing a draft policy that
even includes the word guidelines?

An ISP no matter what their size will be directed by the path of least
resistance if there are only 'guidelines' in place. This is a recipe
for disaster.

What works for one will not work for all, and the term 'guidelines' in
a policy proposal should sidetrack this entire conversation to
something worthy of a policy proposal that we can perhaps adapt before
more people turn to IPv6.

DNS infrastructure, the assignment of blocks to operate said
infrastructure for .tld's and the persecution of persons for
mentioning they should not be mentioned in a draft proposal do nothing
for the people who are counting on the more experienced people here,
and the policy they help create. (I'm speaking for myself, as someone
who follows ARIN PPML to the best of my ability, with the resources I
have).

'Guidelines' should not be introduced at all into how an ISP should
assign blocks of IP's to their clients via policy. If policy changes,
it should be documented in a way that is clear, concise and followed
as closely by ARIN as possible to the letter.

Put guidelines into a BCP. Put enforcible rules into policy. No matter
what, if even a policy is too convoluted, too ambiguous or hard to
work with, it won't be followed anyway.

Steve