[address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio

While I agree with you about the complexity of HD-Ratio, I would not
recommend you simply replace HD-Ratio with ARIN's 75% threshold using
RIPE's current IPv6 policy model.  In 2010 and 2011 the ARIN Policy
Community did a complete rethink and realignment of our model for IPv6
allocations and assignments.  These were policies ARIN-2010-4, ARIN-2010-8,
and ARIN-2011-3.  Additionally, ARIN-2016-6, which was recently recommended
to the ARIN board and awaits their final approval and implementation by
ARIN Staff probably sometime next year, removes the vestigial use of
HD-Ratio and finally removes HD-Ratio from ARIN's NRPM.

https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_4.html
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2010_8.html
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_3.html
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html

The overall goal of these policies was to provide a very generous initial
IPv6 allocation or assignment, in most cases entities shouldn't have to
come back ever or if the do they should only have to come back once or in
rare cases twice in a lifetime. A /48 or /32 are only intended as the
starting point for an end-user (PI) assignment or an ISP or LIR (PA)
allocation respectively.  There is a relatively conservative 75% threshold,
but this is balanced by very generous increase, by a whole nibble or 16
times, once the threshold is crossed.

Simply plucking the 75% threshold out of a complete and holistic rethink of
IPv6 policy would be unadvisable, and I don't think would serve the RIPE
community well.

Thanks.

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:30 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

> Hi Leo,
>
> I’ve decided to propose, for this discussion, 75%, following ARIN similar
> policy. I believe is a fair threshold when a network is expanding number of
> customers, to allow the ISP to plan ahead with sufficient anticipation.
>
> So yes, you’re right that we could split the question in two:
> 1) Do you agree removing the HD-ratio and using a % utilization value
> instead?
> 2) If yes to 1), What % do you think is a good threshold?
>
> My point of view is that HD-ratio makes it unnecesarily complex, and
> causes confusion if you’re using something different than /56, as the
> actual table in the existing policy works based on that, but you may be
> assigning /48, a mix of /48 and /56, or something else.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de
> Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Responder a: <leo.vegoda at icann.org>
> Fecha: martes, 20 de diciembre de 2016, 10:03
> Para: "jordi.palet at consulintel.es" <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>, "
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising
> the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
>
>     Hi Jordi,
>
>     JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
>     [...]
>
>     > So what do you think about:
>     >
>     > 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria
>     >     Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e.
>     > ISP/LIR):
>     > a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space.
>
>     How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular
> significance or are
>     there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be
> replaced
>     with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that
> percentage
>     might be?
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Leo Vegoda
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.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
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161220/a94a1713/attachment.html>