[arin-discuss] neophyte IPv6 inital allocation and fee question

[Tony Hain]

Charles O'Hern wrote:
> Yes we are an ISP, multi-homed, AS13525.  Apologies I didn't realize
> that I neglected to mention our org status.

It only matters because the /4x lengths are not available to an ISP.

> 
> I'm going to avoid the minimun end user allocation/assignment issue.
> I've seen that argument rage back and forth a few times on this and
> the PPML list.  So in the interest of avoiding that occuring again,
> I'll ignore any consideration of need for the moment.

I really don't care what length you end up assigning to your customers, but
I don't want to see people using the length of their ARIN allocation as the
justification for what a customer gets because that is backwards. The proper
way to approach it is to add up the customer allocations, then get a block
large enough.

> 
> The crux of the issue is that the minimum allocation size by NRPM
> doubles our annual fees to ARIN, yet ARIN's own pricing structure for
> ISP's includes listings for smaller allocations.  This leads me to two
> points.
> 
> 1) The lack of consistency is a little confusing.  If the consensus of
> the majority is that more IPv6 adoption is a good thing, shouldn't we
> try to minimize confusion?

I agree that this confusion needs to go away.

> 
> 2) A doubling or more (if more than /32 is needed) of annual fees for
> little to no capital gain will be a barrier to adoption for some.  Any
> ISP currently running on less than a /20 IPv4 will face a fee increase
> in order to adopt IPv6.  I am aware of the route aggregation issue in
> regards to core router RAM and CPU capabilities, but is the loss of
> small ISP IPv6 adoption an intentional sacrifice to ease the routing
> table burden?

I agree with you that your fee should be identical for a minimum IPv4 block
and a /32 IPv6 block, but I am not involved in fee structure discussions. My
personal opinion is that the fee for IPv4 should go up to match the IPv6
one. Again, I agree it shouldn't be confusing, and it shouldn't cost any
different for the minimum size block to be an ISP, but the cost for IPv4 has
to go up as managing it will consume the bulk of the overhead resources
relative to what it will take to manage IPv6. Just sorting through the
increasingly convoluted policies related to IPv4 will waste time both at
ARIN and for its members.

> 
> As a small ISP who really can't afford such an increase should we just
> stop worrying about IPv6 at this time?  (honest question, I have
> plenty of other issues with which to be concerned.)

In many ways the smaller players need to get out ahead of the bigger ones,
because once the bigger players start moving, the smaller ones without the
deep pockets will have a hard time keeping pace. Given there is a fee
problem, it needs to get resolved quickly as nobody should stop worrying
about IPv6 unless they plan to retire in the next year.

> 
> Tony Hain wrote:
> > It would appear from your web site that you provide internet access
> > to customers, so you would fall into the /32 policy bucket. Given
> > your statement that a /4x would be sufficient for your needs, you
> > appear to be assuming an allocation to your customers that is
> > insufficient. Assume you are allocating a /48 to each customer,
> > then add those up. If that exceeds a /32, then ask ARIN for
> > whatever size that ends up being. If you fit within a /32, then you
> > can get by with the minimum for non-end-sites.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > --- 'IPv4 think' is about conservation above all else; IPv6 takes a
> > long term view.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 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.
> 
> --
> Charles O'Hern
> Network Operations
> 
> TCSN - The Computer Shop Netlink
> 1306 Pine St. Paso Robles CA 93446
> 1-(805) 227-7000  1-(800) 974-DISK
> http://www.tcsn.net  abuse at tcsn.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.