1 / 7

Rework of IPv6 Allocation Criteria Policy 2010-4: Summary & Staff Assessment

Replace existing policy with new relaxed criteria for IPv6 allocation. Qualify for /32 by meeting criteria like IPv4 allocation, multi-homed status, or plan to connect 50 customers. Summary of policy status at other RIRs. Staff assessment and PPML discussion included.

whitney
Download Presentation

Rework of IPv6 Allocation Criteria Policy 2010-4: Summary & Staff Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria Draft Policy 2010-4

  2. 2010-4 - History AC Shepherds: Cathy Aronson Bill Darte

  3. 2010-4 – Summary (Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria) Replaces existing policy with new, relaxed criteria. ISPs and LIRs can qualify for a /32 by meeting one of the three following criteria: Have an IPv4 allocation, or Be multi-homed, or Have a plan to connect 50 customers within 5 years Requests allowed for private networks

  4. 2010-4 – Status at other RIRs (Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria) • Draft policy is unique to ARIN region. • Current policy (for a /32): • AfriNIC Be an LIR, and have a plan • APNIC Be an LIR, and have plan (or be an IPv4 LIR) • LACNIC Be an LIR/ISP, have a plan, and route the aggregate • RIPE NCC Be an LIR, and have a plan

  5. 2010-4 – Staff Assessment • Assessment available: • Discussion Guide • http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-February/016708.html

  6. 2010-4 – PPML Discussion Earlier proposal discussion 13 posts by 10 People 5 in favor, 0 against “I support this proposal as written.” “As it is presently impossible to multihome in IPv6 using a /44 cutout of an ISP's /32, [the] proposal… doesn't make technical sense. I decline to support or oppose [the] proposal…” What is a “known ISP”?

  7. Rework of IPv6 allocation criteria Draft Policy 2010-4

More Related