[ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Fee Schedule Change Consultation

[Robert E. Seastrom]

Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:

> For those that have /32s only because /36s weren't an option in
> policy when they obtained their space, the option does exist to
> consolidate into a /36 of your /32 and return the remainder to ARIN
> in order to become an X-Small IPv6 if the proposed fee structure is
> implemented.

Considering this in $BRO_COLO's case.  It's annoying though
particularly for those of us who have been doing sparse allocation
internally in order to aggregate nicely.

> Personally, I would rather see the fee structure modified so that
> /32s issued to X-small IPv4 providers prior to the policy change
> that allowed for /36s were grandfathered as X-Small in the IPv6
> category,

Agreed.

> but, I wouldn't want to create a blanket exemption for all
> /32 holders or even all X-small IPv4 holders.

Why not?  I should think that the ability to turn into a smaller ISP
by handing back or otherwise divesting oneself of (legacy, IPv4)
address space is something that you, of all people, would heartily
support.

-r