Summary

When this policy was designed, “special” organizations which are not strictly ISPs (organizations that do not sell the service to their customers and/or those which are “internal” customers) but rather governments, academic networks or other similar cases, were not considered.

Because of their size, number of users, extent of their infrastructure, hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, etc., under the current text of the policy, these organizations might not be able to justify the need for an allocation larger than a /32.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

This case has already occurred in other regions (e.g., RIPE and ARIN), where certain governments (Spain, Germany, USA) have seen their assignments delayed —even for years— because of a lack of an appropriate policy.

The idea is to prevent this error from happening again and that, instead of lagging behind, the region will be prepared and have a proper policy in place for these cases.

Current text

Modify the first paragraph of section 4.5.1.3 so that it reads as follows:

If the organization is an ISP, the addressing plan must not extend beyond four years. If it is not an ISP, the organization's expected life expectancy must be considered. In all cases, the following considerations must be addressed: address space needed to serve current “customers”, number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

New text
Analyze diff

Modify the first paragraph of section 4.5.1.3 so that it reads as follows:

If the organization is an ISP, the addressing plan must not extend beyond four years. If it is not an ISP, the organization's expected life expectancy must be considered. In all cases, the following considerations must be addressed: address space needed to serve current “customers”, number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

Additional information

None

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

-

Presented at:

-

Summary

When this policy was drafted, “special” organizations which are not strictly ISPs in the “traditional” sense of the term (organizations that might not sell the service to their customers and/or those which are “internal” customers, even if they are different organizations from an administrative point of view) but rather governments, academic networks or other possible similar cases were not taken into consideration.

Because of their size, number of users, extent of their infrastructure, hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, etc., under the current text of the policy, these organizations might not be able to justify the need for an allocation larger than a /32.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

If interpreted strictly by LACNIC staff, the current text of the policy might create problems when trying to justify special cases of LIRs that are not strictly ISPs as defined in section 1.6. It would therefore seem reasonable to establish a clearer case for LIRs that are not “traditional” ISPs. In these situations, IPv4 networks employ private addressing plus one or more NAT layers (this is why this issue has not previously been seen in IPv4, not even in other regions), something which is not appropriate in the case of IPv6.

This case has already occurred in other regions (e.g., RIPE and ARIN), where certain governments (Spain, Germany, USA) have seen their assignments delayed —even for years— because of a lack of an appropriate policy.

The idea is to prevent this error from happening again and that, instead of lagging behind, the region will be prepared and have a proper policy in place for these cases.

Current text

The addition of a new section is proposed:

4.5.1.4. Initial allocation size for LIRs that are not “ISPs” (governments, associations, academic networks or other similar cases)

Organizations may qualify for an initial allocation larger than a /32 by submitting documentation that justifies the request. In this case, the documentation must address the following considerations:

- The addressing plan must consider the organization's life expectancy.
- It must consider the address space needed to serve current “customers,” number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

New text
Analyze diff

The addition of a new section is proposed:

4.5.1.4. Initial allocation size for LIRs that are not “ISPs” (governments, associations, academic networks or other similar cases)

Organizations may qualify for an initial allocation larger than a /32 by submitting documentation that justifies the request. In this case, the documentation must address the following considerations:

- The addressing plan must consider the organization's life expectancy.
- It must consider the address space needed to serve current “customers,” number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

Additional information

None

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

-

Presented at:

LACNIC 25 (02/05/2016)

Summary

When this policy was drafted, “special” organizations which are not strictly ISPs in the “traditional” sense of the term (organizations that might not sell the service to their customers and/or those which are “internal” customers, even if they are different organizations from an administrative point of view) but rather governments, academic networks or other possible similar cases were not taken into consideration.

Because of their size, number of users, extent of their infrastructure, hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, etc., under the current text of the policy, these organizations might not be able to justify the need for an allocation larger than a /32.

Rationale (Describe the problem you intend to solve)

If interpreted strictly by LACNIC staff, the current text of the policy might create problems when trying to justify special cases of LIRs that are not strictly ISPs as defined in section 1.6. It would therefore seem reasonable to establish a clearer case for LIRs that are not “traditional” ISPs. In these situations, IPv4 networks employ private addressing plus one or more NAT layers (this is why this issue has not previously been seen in IPv4, not even in other regions), something which is not appropriate in the case of IPv6.

This case has already occurred in other regions (e.g., RIPE and ARIN), where certain governments (Spain, Germany, USA) have seen their assignments delayed —even for years— because of a lack of an appropriate policy.

The idea is to prevent this error from happening again and that, instead of lagging behind, the region will be prepared and have a proper policy in place for these cases.

Current text

The title of section 4.5.1.3 Initial Allocation Size was modified and is now 4.5.1.3 Initial Allocation Size for ISPs.

The addition of a new section is proposed:

4.5.1.4. Initial allocation size for LIRs that are not “ISPs” (governments, associations, academic networks or other similar cases)

Organizations may qualify for an initial allocation larger than a /32 by submitting documentation that justifies the request. In this case, the documentation must address the following considerations:

- The addressing plan must consider the organization's life expectancy.
- It must consider the address space needed to serve current “customers,” number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

New text
Analyze diff

The title of section 4.5.1.3 Initial Allocation Size was modified and is now 4.5.1.3 Initial Allocation Size for ISPs.

The addition of a new section is proposed:

4.5.1.4. Initial allocation size for LIRs that are not “ISPs” (governments, associations, academic networks or other similar cases)

Organizations may qualify for an initial allocation larger than a /32 by submitting documentation that justifies the request. In this case, the documentation must address the following considerations:

- The addressing plan must consider the organization's life expectancy.
- It must consider the address space needed to serve current “customers,” number of users, extent of the organization's infrastructure, the organization's hierarchical and/or geographic structure, infrastructure segmentation for security or other reasons, and current services considering the minimum assignments recommended by the policy in force.

Additional information

None

Timetable

Immediate implementation

References

-

Presented at:

LACNIC 26 (26/09/2016)