[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Owen DeLong]

I will point out that there is also a current ACSP suggestion (coincidentally 2011.3) which parallels
policy proposal 2011-3.

In this case, 2011-3 would make it possible for X-Small ISPs who want to to request a /36 instead
of a /32. Suggestion 2011.3 would realign the X-Small fee category to be /36 and Small
would remain at /32 (2011-3 precludes non-nibble aligned allocations).

The net effect on fees IPv4->IPv6 in this case would be nearly neutral to slightly positive from
an ARIN perspective since I suspect that some current X-Small IPv4 providers would still opt
to receive a /32 and pay the slightly higher ($1,000 more per year) fee while most would
probably opt for the /36 and continue to pay the same X-Small fee.

At the Tuesday lunch-table discussion of this topic, there was general consensus that this
approach was simple and effective.

The board has deferred making a final determination on 2011.3 to wait and see what happens
with policy proposal 2011-3 (which I think is appropriate on their part). As was announced
today, 2011-3 is now in last call. I think it is very likely that, assuming 2011-3 is recommended
to the board for adoption after last call, the board will implement 2011.3 (the realignment
suggestion) at roughly the same time.

Owen

On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:

> 
> I think it makes more sense than the current categories.
> 
> Is there an easy way to determine how it would affect revenues from all current IPv6 holders?
> 
> I also think it will warrant re-thinking if/when policy goes through to make allocations based on nibble boundaries. I think it would make the most sense in that case for each nibble boundary to be in its own category.
> 
> -Randy
> 
> --
> | Randy Carpenter
> | Vice President - IT Services
> | Red Hat Certified Engineer
> | First Network Group, Inc.
> | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
> ----
> 
> There was a recent policy proposal (138) to try to change the size categories for IPv6 allocations.  It was abandoned by the AC because it is a pricing matter but I wanted to start up a discussion here to perhaps give ARIN guidance as to how the community feels about changing the sizes.  
> 
> Currently the IPv6 size categories are
> 
> IPV6 ANNUAL FEES (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT)
> Size Category	Fee (US Dollars)	Block Size
> X-small	$1,250	smaller than /40
> Small	$2,250	/40 to /32
> Medium	$4,500	/31 to /30
> Large	$9,000	/29 to /27
> X-large	$18,000	/26 to /22
> XX-large	$36,000	/22 and larger
> The proposal was to change them as follows
> 
> 
> X-small    /32 or smaller
> Small      /31 to /30
> Medium     /29 to /27
> Large      /26 to /24
> X-large    /23 to /20
> XX-large          /20 and larger
> 
> Thanks!
> ----Cathy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20110418/eb6e817c/attachment.html>