[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[BANGO]

When is the Barbados meeting?

ROK

-----Original Message----- 
From: David Farmer
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:15 PM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for 
ISPs

Here is the update that I propose to submit tomorrow to meet the
publication deadline for the Barbados meeting.  I believe it accurately
reflects the changes discussed so for.  Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks.

---

Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

Date: 4 April 2013

Problem Statement:

ARIN's fee structure provides a graduated system wherein organizations
pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.

At the very bottom end of the scale, it is presently not possible to be
an XX-Small ISP with an IPv6 allocation because the minimum allocation
size of /36 automatically promotes one into Small ISP status, resulting
in a doubling of annual fees.

While tiny in absolute terms, the extra costs incurred represent a
disincentive to IPv6 deployment.

To the author's knowledge, it has never been possible for an LIR/ISP to
get a /40 allocation direct from ARIN; assignments of /40s have been
limited to organizations that qualify as end sites or critical
infrastructure.  It is understood there is an expected correction of the
xx-small fee category to "/40 or smaller".

Policy statement:

Part 1: In subsection 6.5.2. Initial Allocation Size, insert "or /40" at
the end of the first sentence of subsection 6.5.2.1 clause (b), and add
a new clause (g), resulting in;

b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they
specifically request a /36 or /40.  In no case shall an ISP receive more
than a /16 initial allocation.

...

g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to
expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without additional
justification.  Such expansions are not considered subsequent
allocations.  However, any expansions beyond /32 are considered
subsequent allocations, and must conform to section 6.5.3.

Part 2: Add a new subsection to section 6 "IPv6";

6.12 Reduction or Return

ARIN will accept the return of whole or partial block(s) allowing an
organization to reduce their holdings as long as:

a. The end result is not an increase in the number of non-contiguous
blocks held by the organization.

b. Whole blocks are returned to the extent practicable.

c. Partial block(s) retained must conform to applicable policies, as to
size, alignment, etc…

d. Partial block(s) retained are within a single reserved space or
aggregate set aside for the organization in the ARIN database to the
extent practicable.

e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its
customers.

Comments:

The author acknowledges the shortcomings of providing an ISP with an
allocation of a size that is more traditionally associated with end
sites. In order to avoid possible bad effects on the routing table, the
author encourages ARIN staff to adopt the same sparse allocation
practice as currently exists for larger allocations, perhaps even
reserving a block as large as the /28 that is reserved for /32s.  Note
the policy intent of part 1 requires a minimum of a /32 be reserved.

Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee
schedule, with the addition of an expected correction of the xx-small
fee category to "/40 or smaller".  This makes it possible to qualify for
each ISP fee category while holding IPv6 number resources and allows
expansion up to /32 without justification as a subsequent allocation as
driven by an ISP's business demands.

Part 2 codifies and expands upon current practice for selective return
in the manner described by John Curran on the arin-discuss mailing list
(7-Mar-2013 in
8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA at CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ) It
specifies the generic requirements that should be meet for such returns.

A more practical approach might to figure out a way to apply graduated
fees to ISPs at the very small end of the scale using some metric other
than prefix size. Fee schedules are outside of the purview of the Policy
Development Process; such responsibility lies with the Board should they
choose to take it up.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6224 - Release Date: 04/04/13