The following version was archived on 16 February 2007.
Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 initial allocation criteria
Proposal Version: 1
Submission Date: 11/10/2006
Proposal type: delete
Policy term: permanent
Delete section 220.127.116.11 d. of NRPM
The existing policy is fine for an existing and known ISP in the ARIN region, but is not considering the case of new ISPs, which may want to start offering IPv6 services. Is artificial to ask them for start with IPv4 services (which typically will do, but not necessarily), wait for weeks/months (?) to be "known", and then come back for the IPv6 allocation request.
In addition to that, they need to have a plan for more than 200 /48 assignments. The first question here is that there is room for business with one or just a few IPv6 customers, and it seems irrational not allowing this type of business to be possible, may be even it can be considered against the anti-trust regulations.
Second point is regarding the usage of the /48. An ISP may decide to assign a different prefix size, example a cellular operator with probably will use /64.
Is important to clarify that the "200" comes from historical reasons when this proposal was jointly developed with RIPE and APNIC, but the situation is that other regions such as LACNIC and AFRINIC already got rid of this requirement, and in both, RIPE and APNIC is under discussion. This may even bring to a possible "untrue" plan to be suggested by an ISP if he needs to get an IPv6 prefix allocated.
Regarding the restriction of the usage in 5 years, I think is enough with the criteria indicated in c that the address space is advertised, as there is no ISP interested in getting a prefix which is not being used. Is an operational cost that doesn't make sense if there is not business beyond covering it, never mind if we talk about a few months or a few years.
In summary, the proposal will allow new ISPs, ISPs with a reduced number of customers, or ISPs willing to offer only IPv6 services, to immediately access this resource.
No financial/liability implications for the community and ARIN are foreseen, on the other way around, it will allow ARIN better fulfilling its mission.
No special conditions, fees, exceptions, etc. seem to be required.
Timetable for implementation: Immediate