From packetgrrl at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 15:54:15 2011 From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:54:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. Message-ID: 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 CategoryFee (US Dollars)Block SizeX-small$1,250smaller than /40Small$2,250/40 to /32Medium$4,500/31 to /30 Large$9,000/29 to /27X-large$18,000/26 to /22XX-large$36,000/22 and largerThe proposal was to change them as follows X-small /32 or smaller Small /31 to /30 Medium /29 to /27 Large /26 to /24 X-large /23 to /20 XX-large /20 and larger Thanks! ----Cathy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From packetgrrl at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 16:00:16 2011 From: packetgrrl at gmail.com (cja@daydream.com) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:00:16 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> Message-ID: How do you feel about the size categories all together? Do you think they still make sense in IPv6? Thanks ! On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Brian Jankovich < bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com> wrote: > I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the smallest > a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. > > > > *Brian Jankovich* > > Vault Networks Hosting Services > > http://www.vaultnetworks.com > > > > Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 > > Fax: 708.575.4280 > > Skype: brianvaultnet > > > > *From:* cja at daydream.com [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. > > > > 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 > > > > *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 > > *IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT)* > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rcarpen at network1.net Mon Apr 18 16:03:14 2011 From: rcarpen at network1.net (Randy Carpenter) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:03:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> 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 ---- ----- Original Message ----- > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agallo at gwu.edu Mon Apr 18 16:00:54 2011 From: agallo at gwu.edu (Andrew Gallo) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:00:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAC9876.4070308@gwu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would agree this topic needs further discussion and hopefully policy improvement and implementation. These size assignments should not be just for ISPs. As an end site that, for various reasons, should have larger than a /48, we seem to be stuck with either multiple /48 allocations, or attempting to justify a /32. Ideally, there would be size categories between 48 & 32, especially for end sites that receive allocations directly from ARIN. Thank you. On 4/18/2011 3:54 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > 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 CategoryFee (US > Dollars)Block > SizeX-small$1,250smaller than /40Small$2,250/40 to /32Medium$4,500/31 to /30 > Large$9,000/29 to /27X-large$18,000/26 to /22XX-large$36,000/22 and largerThe > 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. - -- ____________ Andrew Gallo The George Washington University -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk2smHYACgkQQr/gMVyFYyTFXwCfdYagWQ9x+woozic6g5zJcprN dScAn2pEjJuHBtTDHqmI43Zaoo+KrXjq =c0cf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mjoseph at google.com Mon Apr 18 16:13:04 2011 From: mjoseph at google.com (Mike Joseph) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:13:04 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: It's worth noting that the policy in question (2011-3) actually creates the /36 allocation size, as well. -MJ On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:03 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 $36,000 /22 and largerThe proposal was to change them as > follows > > X-small /32 or smaller > Small /31 to /30 > Medium /29 to /27 > Large /26 to /24 > X-large /23 to /20 > XX-large /20 and larger > > Thanks! > ----Cathy > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james.cornick at jchost.net Mon Apr 18 16:06:56 2011 From: james.cornick at jchost.net (James Cornick - JCHost.net) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:06:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> Message-ID: <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> I agree there needs to be an equivalent for the X-Small allocation with ipv4 in conjunture with ipv6 fee schedule and allocation size. I believe this will encourage ipv6 use as it will not be as costly and also so everyone who has ipv4 allocation would have the ability to easily obtain a ipv6 allocation. In terms of what you have laid out allocation size wise I think what you have makes good sense unless there is a way to make the /32 the x-small, however making the /32 the x-small seems like there would be a lot of waste. Thank you, James Cornick On 4/18/2011 3:00 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > How do you feel about the size categories all together? Do you think > they still make sense in IPv6? > > Thanks ! > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Brian Jankovich > > > wrote: > > I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the > smallest a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. > > *Brian Jankovich* > > VaultNetworksHosting Services > > http://www.vaultnetworks.com > > Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 > > Fax: 708.575.4280 > > Skype: brianvaultnet > > *From:*cja at daydream.com > [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM > *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. > > 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 > > *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 > > *IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT)* > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkline at segainc.com Mon Apr 18 16:14:56 2011 From: mkline at segainc.com (Mikel Kline) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:14:56 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why not price the IPv6 addresses on a flat fee per block basis? I would even let you choose the fee and the size of the block that serves as the standard cost basis. Dividing the address space per fee makes a pretty interesting cost curve that just doesn't seem right. Mikel Kline On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > 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 $36,000 /22 and largerThe proposal was to change them as > follows > > X-small /32 or smaller > Small /31 to /30 > Medium /29 to /27 > Large /26 to /24 > X-large /23 to /20 > XX-large /20 and larger > > Thanks! > ----Cathy > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com Mon Apr 18 15:57:17 2011 From: bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com (Brian Jankovich) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:57:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the smallest a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. Brian Jankovich Vault Networks Hosting Services http://www.vaultnetworks.com Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 Fax: 708.575.4280 Skype: brianvaultnet From: cja at daydream.com [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. 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 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 $36,000 /22 and larger IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT) The proposal was to change them as follows X-small /32 or smaller Small /31 to /30 Medium /29 to /27 Large /26 to /24 X-large /23 to /20 XX-large /20 and larger Thanks! ----Cathy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bhierholzer at artisaninfrastructure.com Mon Apr 18 16:16:26 2011 From: bhierholzer at artisaninfrastructure.com (Brian. Hierholzer) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:16:26 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> Message-ID: <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> How do I get off list? Sent from my mobile phone On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:15 PM, "James Cornick - JCHost.net" > wrote: I agree there needs to be an equivalent for the X-Small allocation with ipv4 in conjunture with ipv6 fee schedule and allocation size. I believe this will encourage ipv6 use as it will not be as costly and also so everyone who has ipv4 allocation would have the ability to easily obtain a ipv6 allocation. In terms of what you have laid out allocation size wise I think what you have makes good sense unless there is a way to make the /32 the x-small, however making the /32 the x-small seems like there would be a lot of waste. Thank you, James Cornick On 4/18/2011 3:00 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: How do you feel about the size categories all together? Do you think they still make sense in IPv6? Thanks ! On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Brian Jankovich <bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com> wrote: I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the smallest a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. Brian Jankovich Vault Networks Hosting Services http://www.vaultnetworks.com Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 Fax: 708.575.4280 Skype: brianvaultnet From: cja at daydream.com [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. 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 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 IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT) 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 16:30:24 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:30:24 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <12549DB7-3382-4A48-BEC2-3A7C214FFE12@delong.com> 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: From jbolden at broadsoft.com Mon Apr 18 16:26:14 2011 From: jbolden at broadsoft.com (James L. Bolden, II) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:26:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] remove Message-ID: <3C04B27FC880044F8FCD735D0D952FF7297644A9A3@EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local> Thanks, James James L. Bolden, II Sr. Systems & Network Engineer | BroadSoft, Inc. +1 240.364.5258 | jbolden at broadsoft.com Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BroadSoftNews [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBFDE5.564E9600] This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you believe that you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately, delete the message from any computer, and do not read, distribute, copy, or print this email or any attachment. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46493 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From jbolden at broadsoft.com Mon Apr 18 16:26:23 2011 From: jbolden at broadsoft.com (James L. Bolden, II) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:26:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] unsubscribe Message-ID: <3C04B27FC880044F8FCD735D0D952FF7297644A9A4@EXMBXCLUS01.citservers.local> Thanks, James James L. Bolden, II Sr. Systems & Network Engineer | BroadSoft, Inc. +1 240.364.5258 | jbolden at broadsoft.com Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BroadSoftNews [cid:image001.jpg at 01CBFDE5.5BA74CA0] This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you believe that you received this email in error, please contact the sender immediately, delete the message from any computer, and do not read, distribute, copy, or print this email or any attachment. P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 46493 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From andrew at cartikahosting.com Mon Apr 18 16:27:54 2011 From: andrew at cartikahosting.com (Andrew Rouchotas) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:27:54 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> Message-ID: <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> its pretty simple to remove yourself from this mailing list - pasted related section below for your convenience On 2011-04-18, at 4:16 PM, Brian. Hierholzer wrote: >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 16:35:32 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:35:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <4DAC9876.4070308@gwu.edu> References: <4DAC9876.4070308@gwu.edu> Message-ID: Andrew, First, end sites receive assignments and not allocations. Second, there are size categories for end sites: From: https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html IPV6 END USER FEES 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 As you can see, your multiple /48s (up to 255 of them) can be issued together for a single X-Small fee of $1,250. Further, these are one-time fees when blocks are issued and your annual fee is $100. The fees listed in the ISP table are annual subscription fees. Do you really want your end-user fees increased that extensively? Owen On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:00 PM, Andrew Gallo wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I would agree this topic needs further discussion and hopefully policy > improvement and implementation. > > These size assignments should not be just for ISPs. As an end site > that, for various reasons, should have larger than a /48, we seem to be > stuck with either multiple /48 allocations, or attempting to justify a > /32. Ideally, there would be size categories between 48 & 32, > especially for end sites that receive allocations directly from ARIN. > > Thank you. > > > > > > On 4/18/2011 3:54 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: >> 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 CategoryFee (US >> Dollars)Block >> SizeX-small$1,250smaller than /40Small$2,250/40 to /32Medium$4,500/31 to /30 >> Large$9,000/29 to /27X-large$18,000/26 to /22XX-large$36,000/22 and largerThe >> 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. > > - -- > ____________ > Andrew Gallo > The George Washington University > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAk2smHYACgkQQr/gMVyFYyTFXwCfdYagWQ9x+woozic6g5zJcprN > dScAn2pEjJuHBtTDHqmI43Zaoo+KrXjq > =c0cf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > 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: From bicknell at ufp.org Mon Apr 18 16:30:22 2011 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:30:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110418203022.GC34624@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:54:15PM -0600, cja at daydream.com wrote: > 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 I have long thought a mistaken in the pricing model was to top out the pricing at a relatively "small" size. While a /20 seems super large today, that will eventually change. In IPv4 we have ISP's who've gotten more IP's for years now and stayed the same "size". You run out of names though, so perhaps the same sizes with different names and a few more at the end? Size A -/32 Size B /31-/30 Size C /29-/27 Size D /26-/24 Size E /23-/20 Size F /20-/17 Size G /16-/12 Size H /11-/8 Size I /7-/1 Even though it might be years before someone has a /10 worth of IPv6 space in the ARIN region, it would be nice to have a bucket for them and not just have them keep paying the /20 rate forever. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 826 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mjoseph at google.com Mon Apr 18 16:45:56 2011 From: mjoseph at google.com (Mike Joseph) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:45:56 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> Message-ID: Despite the complexity, I think they still make sense. We will eventually see a dramatic decrease in IPv4 allocations (granted, a decade or more out), and with that, a drop off of the IPv4 ISP annual revenue. That will leave only the IPv6 allocations (assignments will be less frequent) as a significant revenue stream. So if we went with a one-size-fits-all model for IPv6 ISP fees, the smaller ISPs would end up having to pay quite a bit more, I think. It would be interesting to see how the numbers would work out for that. Were we do adopt such a policy today, it means that the single IPv6 annual fee would probably be higher than the lower levels of the IPv4 fees, resulting in a fee increase to any network adopting IPv6. -MJ On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > How do you feel about the size categories all together? Do you think they > still make sense in IPv6? > > Thanks ! > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Brian Jankovich < > bjankovich at vaultnetworks.com> wrote: > >> I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the smallest >> a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. >> >> >> >> *Brian Jankovich* >> >> Vault Networks Hosting Services >> >> http://www.vaultnetworks.com >> >> >> >> Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 >> >> Fax: 708.575.4280 >> >> Skype: brianvaultnet >> >> >> >> *From:* cja at daydream.com [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM >> *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> *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 >> >> $36,000 >> >> /22 and larger >> >> *IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT)* >> >> The proposal was to change them as follows >> >> >> >> X-small /32 or smaller >> >> Small /31 to /30 >> >> Medium /29 to /27 >> >> Large /26 to /24 >> >> X-large /23 to /20 >> >> XX-large /20 and larger >> >> >> >> Thanks! >> >> ----Cathy >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mike at interserver.net Mon Apr 18 16:26:52 2011 From: mike at interserver.net (Michael Lavrik) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:26:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> Message-ID: <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D1146557@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> you would think that people in the industry would know how to unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Rouchotas Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:28 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. its pretty simple to remove yourself from this mailing list - pasted related section below for your convenience On 2011-04-18, at 4:16 PM, Brian. Hierholzer wrote: _______________________________________________ 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: From Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com Mon Apr 18 16:53:57 2011 From: Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com (Todd A. Blank) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:53:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D1146557@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D1146557@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> Message-ID: I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I don't even use the Internet... On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: you would think that people in the industry would know how to unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Rouchotas Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:28 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. its pretty simple to remove yourself from this mailing list - pasted related section below for your convenience On 2011-04-18, at 4:16 PM, Brian. Hierholzer wrote: _______________________________________________ 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 16:57:10 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:57:10 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> Message-ID: <807CC0EA-9834-4AA6-8D62-6AE9928DF280@delong.com> On Apr 18, 2011, at 1:45 PM, Mike Joseph wrote: > Despite the complexity, I think they still make sense. We will eventually see a dramatic decrease in IPv4 allocations (granted, a decade or more out), and with that, a drop off of the IPv4 ISP annual revenue. That will leave only the IPv6 allocations (assignments will be less frequent) as a significant revenue stream. > In general, this will be a 1:1 as the IPv4 subscription fees for most organizations are the same as their IPv6 fees. > So if we went with a one-size-fits-all model for IPv6 ISP fees, the smaller ISPs would end up having to pay quite a bit more, I think. It would be interesting to see how the numbers would work out for that. Were we do adopt such a policy today, it means that the single IPv6 annual fee would probably be higher than the lower levels of the IPv4 fees, resulting in a fee increase to any network adopting IPv6. > I don't think anyone has advocated a one-size-fits-all model. Owen > -MJ > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > How do you feel about the size categories all together? Do you think they still make sense in IPv6? > > Thanks ! > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Brian Jankovich wrote: > I agree with the proposed pricing mode. Being that the /32 is the smallest a provider can get, it should be in the X-small category. > > > Brian Jankovich > > Vault Networks Hosting Services > > http://www.vaultnetworks.com > > > Direct: 305.735.8098 x210 > > Fax: 708.575.4280 > > Skype: brianvaultnet > > > From: cja at daydream.com [mailto:packetgrrl at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:54 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. > > > 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 > > > 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 > > $36,000 > > /22 and larger > > IPV6 ANNUAL FEES (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT) > > The proposal was to change them as follows > > > > > X-small /32 or smaller > > Small /31 to /30 > > Medium /29 to /27 > > Large /26 to /24 > > X-large /23 to /20 > > XX-large /20 and larger > > > Thanks! > > ----Cathy > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jradel at vantage.com Mon Apr 18 17:03:20 2011 From: jradel at vantage.com (Jon Radel) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:20 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D1146557@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> Message-ID: <4DACA718.9060400@vantage.com> It ran out because somebody forgot to turn the faucet off. For ipv6 we've gone all modern and are using one of those faucets that turns off after 5 seconds unless you keep waving your hands just the right way. On 4/18/11 4:53 PM, Todd A. Blank wrote: > I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I > don't even use the Internet... > > On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: > >> you would think that people in the industry would know how to >> unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3648 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From bensons at queuefull.net Mon Apr 18 17:05:34 2011 From: bensons at queuefull.net (Benson Schliesser) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:05:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24248D71-E94B-435A-B0E3-C7CD0695ADD5@queuefull.net> On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Mikel Kline wrote: > Why not price the IPv6 addresses on a flat fee per block basis? I agree with this sentiment. As a membership organization, ARIN's fee structure should recover costs fairly from the membership. The number of requests (e.g. for address blocks) may be a meaningful proxy for budgetary impact, but block size is not relevant. Cheers, -Benson From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Apr 18 17:12:43 2011 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:12:43 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <05a801cbfe02$d1c6af80$75540e80$@vaultnetworks.com> <4DAC99E0.8060701@jchost.net> <6439C080-94FC-406D-863C-572DDF0E13B0@artisaninfrastructure.com> <5C24D78A-DA36-49F7-A32B-4EDFFA99EC40@cartikahosting.com> <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D1146557@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> Message-ID: <4DACA94B.6080706@ipinc.net> Your one of these people, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUs7iG1mNjI Ted On 4/18/2011 1:53 PM, Todd A. Blank wrote: > I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I don't > even use the Internet... > > On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: > >> you would think that people in the industry would know how to >> unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. >> >> *From:*arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Rouchotas >> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2011 4:28 PM >> *To:* arin-discuss at arin.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. >> >> its pretty simple to remove yourself from this mailing list - pasted >> related section below for your convenience >> >> On 2011-04-18, at 4:16 PM, Brian. Hierholzer wrote: >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. From Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com Mon Apr 18 17:16:46 2011 From: Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com (Todd A. Blank) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:16:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <4DACA718.9060400@vantage.com> Message-ID: I guess that's better than just turning off the faucet for good and letting us all fight over what's left? P.S. How do I get off this list? From: Jon Radel > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:20 -0400 To: > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. It ran out because somebody forgot to turn the faucet off. For ipv6 we've gone all modern and are using one of those faucets that turns off after 5 seconds unless you keep waving your hands just the right way. On 4/18/11 4:53 PM, Todd A. Blank wrote: I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I don't even use the Internet... On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: you would think that people in the industry would know how to unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. _______________________________________________ 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: From bill at telnetcommunications.com Mon Apr 18 17:18:44 2011 From: bill at telnetcommunications.com (Bill Sandiford) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:18:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <4DACA718.9060400@vantage.com> Message-ID: It's right at the bottom of every message. Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Bill From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Todd A. Blank Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:17 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. I guess that's better than just turning off the faucet for good and letting us all fight over what's left... P.S. How do I get off this list? From: Jon Radel > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:20 -0400 To: > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. It ran out because somebody forgot to turn the faucet off. For ipv6 we've gone all modern and are using one of those faucets that turns off after 5 seconds unless you keep waving your hands just the right way. On 4/18/11 4:53 PM, Todd A. Blank wrote: I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I don't even use the Internet... On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: you would think that people in the industry would know how to unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. _______________________________________________ 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: From Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com Mon Apr 18 17:20:53 2011 From: Todd.Blank at yourcolo.com (Todd A. Blank) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:20:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill, I appreciate your prompt reply, however, I am trying to get off the list ? not receive more mail from it. Sincerely, Todd From: Bill Sandiford > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:18:44 -0400 To: Todd Blank >, "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. It?s right at the bottom of every message. Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Bill From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Todd A. Blank Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:17 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. I guess that's better than just turning off the faucet for good and letting us all fight over what's left? P.S. How do I get off this list? From: Jon Radel > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:03:20 -0400 To: > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. It ran out because somebody forgot to turn the faucet off. For ipv6 we've gone all modern and are using one of those faucets that turns off after 5 seconds unless you keep waving your hands just the right way. On 4/18/11 4:53 PM, Todd A. Blank wrote: I don't understand why it ran out either - as a matter of fact, I don't even use the Internet... On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, "Michael Lavrik" > wrote: you would think that people in the industry would know how to unsubscribe from a mailing list. This is probably why ipv4 ran out. _______________________________________________ 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 17:16:11 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:16:11 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <24248D71-E94B-435A-B0E3-C7CD0695ADD5@queuefull.net> References: <24248D71-E94B-435A-B0E3-C7CD0695ADD5@queuefull.net> Message-ID: <03D25583-D701-4ECE-905B-6772816A8117@delong.com> On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Mikel Kline wrote: > >> Why not price the IPv6 addresses on a flat fee per block basis? > > I agree with this sentiment. As a membership organization, ARIN's fee structure should recover costs fairly from the membership. The number of requests (e.g. for address blocks) may be a meaningful proxy for budgetary impact, but block size is not relevant. > The costs of registration services are not linear with the amount of address space consumed. As such, a flat fee per address would not be a fair way to recover the costs. A flat fee per request would come closer, but, also is not completely linear because there are some cost variables that do actually track the size of a block loosely. The current system makes an effort to roughly correlate these things into a set of fee categories that more or less does that. Owen From mtedeschi at aegworldwide.com Mon Apr 18 17:29:52 2011 From: mtedeschi at aegworldwide.com (Michael Tedeschi) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 14:29:52 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <03D25583-D701-4ECE-905B-6772816A8117@delong.com> Message-ID: <11119BF1B8A1BB4D836F6A283D0D6886704BD7@USLAXGL1MAIL01.aeg.global.net> Did you add me to this discussion?? I got like 200 emails in the last hour about this Sent using BlackBerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 02:16 PM To: Benson Schliesser Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Mikel Kline wrote: > >> Why not price the IPv6 addresses on a flat fee per block basis? > > I agree with this sentiment. As a membership organization, ARIN's fee structure should recover costs fairly from the membership. The number of requests (e.g. for address blocks) may be a meaningful proxy for budgetary impact, but block size is not relevant. > The costs of registration services are not linear with the amount of address space consumed. As such, a flat fee per address would not be a fair way to recover the costs. A flat fee per request would come closer, but, also is not completely linear because there are some cost variables that do actually track the size of a block loosely. The current system makes an effort to roughly correlate these things into a set of fee categories that more or less does that. Owen _______________________________________________ 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. From mike at interserver.net Mon Apr 18 17:15:48 2011 From: mike at interserver.net (Michael Lavrik) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:15:48 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <11119BF1B8A1BB4D836F6A283D0D6886704BD7@USLAXGL1MAIL01.aeg.global.net> References: <03D25583-D701-4ECE-905B-6772816A8117@delong.com> <11119BF1B8A1BB4D836F6A283D0D6886704BD7@USLAXGL1MAIL01.aeg.global.net> Message-ID: <9826BB233CC2934DB2B2C06BD2C749D11467BF@CORPMAIL2.corpmail.interserver.net> To unsubscribe please insert pointy object into eyeballs. Thanks, Michael Lavrik :Director of Business Development:? - 201-605-1440 x 100 - 201-526-6605?- fax AIM: IntServer ICQ: 42499339 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Tedeschi Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:30 PM To: owen at delong.com; bensons at queuefull.net Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. Did you add me to this discussion?? I got like 200 emails in the last hour about this Sent using BlackBerry ----- Original Message ----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 02:16 PM To: Benson Schliesser Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Mikel Kline wrote: > >> Why not price the IPv6 addresses on a flat fee per block basis? > > I agree with this sentiment. As a membership organization, ARIN's fee structure should recover costs fairly from the membership. The number of requests (e.g. for address blocks) may be a meaningful proxy for budgetary impact, but block size is not relevant. > The costs of registration services are not linear with the amount of address space consumed. As such, a flat fee per address would not be a fair way to recover the costs. A flat fee per request would come closer, but, also is not completely linear because there are some cost variables that do actually track the size of a block loosely. The current system makes an effort to roughly correlate these things into a set of fee categories that more or less does that. Owen _______________________________________________ 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. From swm at emanon.com Mon Apr 18 16:11:58 2011 From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 16:11:58 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DAC9B0E.7010402@emanon.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronh at bind.com Mon Apr 18 20:49:39 2011 From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:49:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> Personally, I really like the idea of following the nibbles better and not categorizing /32s as such small space. 15 regions of /36s (with one reserved for internal infrastructure) IMHO is not X-small. This also seems to be closer in alignment to the rest of the policy related to nibble round ups for justification. Additionally, the /36 (as a new minimum allocation) would allow those in X-small or Small categories to remain in the same price category while also having appropriately sized v6 allocations. (This, of course, would/should, grandfather those who received /32s (min allocation) and didn't really need that much, in the appropriate Small category) I would propose the following: X-small: /48 -> /35 Small: /36 -> /31 Medium: /32 -> /27 Large: /28 -> /23 X-large: /24 -> /19 XX-large: /20 and larger Cheers, Aaron On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:54:15PM -0600, cja at daydream.com wrote: > 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 CategoryFee (US > Dollars)Block > SizeX-small$1,250smaller than /40Small$2,250/40 to /32Medium$4,500/31 to /30 > Large$9,000/29 to /27X-large$18,000/26 to /22XX-large$36,000/22 and largerThe > 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. -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com +1-831-824-4161 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ From cgucker at onesc.net Mon Apr 18 20:51:03 2011 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:51:03 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mike Joseph wrote: > It's worth noting that the policy in question (2011-3) actually creates the > /36 allocation size, as well. Mike, I understand (and understood) that when I wrote the proposed policy language, that the 2011-3 proposal policy existed, but was not yet enacted. As a result, I was not able to incorporate any of the language proposed and had to use the policy that has been in place since 2001. So, in short, for the last 10 years, there has been a discrepancy between the working policy (/32 min allocation for ISPs) and the current fee structure allocation blocks. The proposal was intended to align the two, not to alter the fee structures for IPv6 ISP allocations. If the board elected to, they could make the X-Small $1/year less than the Small category, which would have the same effect (without altering the block sizes) as merging the two, but I highly doubt that would ever be required. When I wrote the proposal, I was under the impression, and I still believe, that the block sizes are of a public policy discussion while the fee values themselves are left to the board. As such, aligning them would need community consensus since there are a number of current organizations are stuck in limbo as they are a multi-homed IPv4 X-Small ISP and want to use IPv4, but cannot request a block size of a X-Small, because 2001-3 provided for a minimum allocation size of a /32 which would equate to the maximum size of a Small block size. This whole situation flies in the face of IPv6 adoption. It also prevents new organizations from securing and more importantly utilizing IPv6 address space (which means new revenue to ARIN). I hope this explains more about why the language was required in the first place. charles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgucker at onesc.net Mon Apr 18 20:53:51 2011 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:53:51 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> References: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > Personally, I really like the idea of following the nibbles better and not categorizing /32s as such small space. 15 regions of /36s (with one reserved for internal infrastructure) IMHO is not X-small. This also seems to be closer in alignment to the rest of the policy related to nibble round ups for justification. Additionally, the /36 (as a new minimum allocation) would allow those in X-small or Small categories to remain in the same price category while also having appropriately sized v6 allocations. > > (This, of course, would/should, grandfather those who received /32s (min allocation) and didn't really need that much, in the appropriate Small category) > > I would propose the following: > > X-small: /48 -> /35 > Small: /36 -> /31 > Medium: /32 -> /27 > Large: /28 -> /23 > X-large: /24 -> /19 > XX-large: /20 and larger Aaron, Unfortunately you're putting the cart infront of the horse. Once 2011-3 is adopted, we would have to deal with the /32 is the minimum allocation size. So, I don't think you would object holding off on any block alterations until after 2011-3 is adopted (if it is adopted). charles From aaronh at bind.com Mon Apr 18 21:02:30 2011 From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:02:30 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: <20110419010230.GC15417@trace.bind.com> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:53:51PM -0400, Charles Gucker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > > Personally, I really like the idea of following the nibbles better and not categorizing /32s as such small space. 15 regions of /36s (with one reserved for internal infrastructure) IMHO is not X-small. This also seems to be closer in alignment to the rest of the policy related to nibble round ups for justification. Additionally, the /36 (as a new minimum allocation) would allow those in X-small or Small categories to remain in the same price category while also having appropriately sized v6 allocations. > > > > (This, of course, would/should, grandfather those who received /32s (min allocation) and didn't really need that much, in the appropriate Small category) > > > > I would propose the following: > > > > X-small: /48 -> /35 > > Small: /36 -> /31 > > Medium: /32 -> /27 > > Large: /28 -> /23 > > X-large: /24 -> /19 > > XX-large: /20 and larger > > Aaron, > > Unfortunately you're putting the cart infront of the horse. > Once 2011-3 is adopted, we would have to deal with the /32 is the > minimum allocation size. So, I don't think you would object holding > off on any block alterations until after 2011-3 is adopted (if it is > adopted). > > charles While I agree with you, my opinion above still stands. I realize there are multiple proposals that would need to either be adopted or a new one drafted and passed, however, this thread is not about 1 specific policy proposal, it is about size categories. Obviously, I clearly believe /32 is the incorrect minimum allocation size. :) I would not be in favor of modifying size categories without modifying minimum allocation, however, given no other choice I would support the change. Cheers, Aaron -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com +1-831-824-4161 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ From cgucker at onesc.net Mon Apr 18 21:23:00 2011 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 21:23:00 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <20110419010230.GC15417@trace.bind.com> References: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> <20110419010230.GC15417@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: >> Aaron, >> >> ? ? ? ?Unfortunately you're putting the cart infront of the horse. >> Once 2011-3 is adopted, we would have to deal with the /32 is the >> minimum allocation size. ? ?So, I don't think you would object holding >> off on any block alterations until after 2011-3 is adopted (if it is >> adopted). >> >> charles > > While I agree with you, my opinion above still stands. I realize there are multiple proposals that would need to either be adopted or a new one drafted and passed, however, this thread is not about 1 specific policy proposal, it is about size categories. Obviously, I clearly believe /32 is the incorrect minimum allocation size. :) Understood. I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the original proposal to align the block sizes with current policy, not proposed policy. Personally, once new proposed policies are adopted, I expect the block sizes to also be modified. > I would not be in favor of modifying size categories without modifying minimum allocation, however, given no other choice I would support the change. I'm just a fan of ensuring the block sizes mirror actual policy and not written in a vacuum. I support any change that aligns the implementation with policy. charles From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 21:50:07 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:50:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> References: <20110419004939.GA15417@trace.bind.com> Message-ID: <00B0350E-DF5E-4DA6-8221-6802ECB502E5@delong.com> Aaron, We're talking about size category alignment for ISPs, not end-users. As such, the proposal I submitted in 2011.3 was to do the following: /36 X-small /32 Small I did not make suggestions on realigning the rest of the fee structure, but, now that I consider it in light of the implications of 2011-3, I think it would make sense to set: /28 Medium /24 Large /20 X-Large /16+ XX-Large Owen On Apr 18, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Aaron Hughes wrote: > Personally, I really like the idea of following the nibbles better and not categorizing /32s as such small space. 15 regions of /36s (with one reserved for internal infrastructure) IMHO is not X-small. This also seems to be closer in alignment to the rest of the policy related to nibble round ups for justification. Additionally, the /36 (as a new minimum allocation) would allow those in X-small or Small categories to remain in the same price category while also having appropriately sized v6 allocations. > > (This, of course, would/should, grandfather those who received /32s (min allocation) and didn't really need that much, in the appropriate Small category) > > I would propose the following: > > X-small: /48 -> /35 > Small: /36 -> /31 > Medium: /32 -> /27 > Large: /28 -> /23 > X-large: /24 -> /19 > XX-large: /20 and larger > > Cheers, > Aaron > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 01:54:15PM -0600, cja at daydream.com wrote: >> 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 CategoryFee (US >> Dollars)Block >> SizeX-small$1,250smaller than /40Small$2,250/40 to /32Medium$4,500/31 to /30 >> Large$9,000/29 to /27X-large$18,000/26 to /22XX-large$36,000/22 and largerThe >> 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. > > > -- > > Aaron Hughes > aaronh at bind.com > +1-831-824-4161 > Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 > http://www.bind.com/ > _______________________________________________ > 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. From owen at delong.com Mon Apr 18 21:53:08 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:53:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> Message-ID: <41792208-8851-4B22-A55B-68E03D10E8D6@delong.com> The block sizes have no relevance to anything other than fees and as such are simply a part of the fee structure. As such, no, realigning them does not require community consensus or use of the policy process. The existing block sizes were developed by the FINCOM and not through the PDP. Owen On Apr 18, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Charles Gucker wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mike Joseph wrote: > It's worth noting that the policy in question (2011-3) actually creates the /36 allocation size, as well. > > Mike, > > I understand (and understood) that when I wrote the proposed policy language, that the 2011-3 proposal policy existed, but was not yet enacted. As a result, I was not able to incorporate any of the language proposed and had to use the policy that has been in place since 2001. So, in short, for the last 10 years, there has been a discrepancy between the working policy (/32 min allocation for ISPs) and the current fee structure allocation blocks. The proposal was intended to align the two, not to alter the fee structures for IPv6 ISP allocations. If the board elected to, they could make the X-Small $1/year less than the Small category, which would have the same effect (without altering the block sizes) as merging the two, but I highly doubt that would ever be required. > > When I wrote the proposal, I was under the impression, and I still believe, that the block sizes are of a public policy discussion while the fee values themselves are left to the board. As such, aligning them would need community consensus since there are a number of current organizations are stuck in limbo as they are a multi-homed IPv4 X-Small ISP and want to use IPv4, but cannot request a block size of a X-Small, because 2001-3 provided for a minimum allocation size of a /32 which would equate to the maximum size of a Small block size. This whole situation flies in the face of IPv6 adoption. It also prevents new organizations from securing and more importantly utilizing IPv6 address space (which means new revenue to ARIN). > > I hope this explains more about why the language was required in the first place. > > charles > _______________________________________________ > 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: From cgucker at onesc.net Mon Apr 18 22:06:46 2011 From: cgucker at onesc.net (Charles Gucker) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:06:46 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <41792208-8851-4B22-A55B-68E03D10E8D6@delong.com> References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> <41792208-8851-4B22-A55B-68E03D10E8D6@delong.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The block sizes have no relevance to anything other than fees and as such > are simply a part of the fee structure. ?As such, no, realigning them does not require community > consensus or use of the policy process. > The existing block sizes were developed by the FINCOM and not through the > PDP. Ahh, so you're saying that the FINCOM process over-reached when they first developed the policy and now we are dealing with the results of an inconsistent implantation of a public policy (10 years late)? ;-) Strange barrier for the FINCOM to draw when the accountants set bit sizes on public policy. I whole heartily agree that the FINCOM should set the fee structure (actual dollar values), but not bit boundaries that should be contained within the PDP with everything else creating the policy. charles From vixie at isc.org Tue Apr 19 01:02:06 2011 From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:02:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:06:46 -0400." References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> <41792208-8851-4B22-A55B-68E03D10E8D6@delong.com> Message-ID: <33875.1303189326@nsa.vix.com> > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:06:46 -0400 > From: Charles Gucker > > Strange barrier for the FINCOM to draw when the accountants set bit > sizes on public policy. the fincom contains several members of ARIN's Board of Trustees, who are sometimes accountants but are almost always also bitwise. From owen at delong.com Tue Apr 19 01:31:22 2011 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:31:22 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: References: <7463fe44-b99a-48b4-bad4-c1595b0f37ca@zimbra.network1.net> <41792208-8851-4B22-A55B-68E03D10E8D6@delong.com> Message-ID: On Apr 18, 2011, at 7:06 PM, Charles Gucker wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> The block sizes have no relevance to anything other than fees and as such >> are simply a part of the fee structure. As such, no, realigning them does not require community >> consensus or use of the policy process. >> The existing block sizes were developed by the FINCOM and not through the >> PDP. > > Ahh, so you're saying that the FINCOM process over-reached when they > first developed the policy and now we are dealing with the results of > an inconsistent implantation of a public policy (10 years late)? ;-) > Strange barrier for the FINCOM to draw when the accountants set bit > sizes on public policy. > > I whole heartily agree that the FINCOM should set the fee structure > (actual dollar values), but not bit boundaries that should be > contained within the PDP with everything else creating the policy. > > charles Sorry, one of us is still missing something. The FINCOM didn't set the bit boundaries for allocation policy, only the bit boundaries for which sizes of things fit into which fee category. Policy developed through the PDP has historically governed the size of allocations and will continue to do so. However, that policy is independent of the alignment of size categories for billing. Neither one affects the other directly. The FINCOM sets both the size boundaries and the fees applied to those size categories for billing purposes. Previously, the FINCOM developed size categories without considering the actual allocation policy and the result was, well, slightly dysfunctional. Among other messages that the FINCOM has gleaned from suggestion 2011.3 is that they should consider the policy specified sizes in determining the fee structure sizes, so, I believe that will happen going forward. In fact, other than the x-Small size category applying only to allocations not supported by policy, I think the current fee structure and size alignments work rather well with current policy. I would argue that current policy is slightly dysfunctional with regard to certain X-Small ISPs and thus I included language to resolve that into 2011-3. I believe that the fee size categories will need a bit of an overhaul to accommodate 2011-3 as well, but I'm confident that the FINCOM will properly take that into account should 2011-3 become policy. I submitted suggestion 2011.3 to launch at least an initial consideration of this fact by the board and it has had the desired effect. I suspect that the FINCOM will continue to watch the development of 2011-3 closely and will make appropriate adjustments to the fee structure size categories AND the fees if it is enacted by the board. Currently 2011-3 is in last call and I would suggest that you review it as revised after the public policy meeting and express your support or opposition on PPML as part of the last call process. I am hoping that we will be able to send it to the board for adoption at the next AC meeting which is in May. Owen From ccie18532 at gmail.com Tue Apr 19 07:39:30 2011 From: ccie18532 at gmail.com (GMail Account) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:39:30 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <4DAC9B0E.7010402@emanon.com> References: <4DAC9B0E.7010402@emanon.com> Message-ID: <004f01cbfe86$739af900$5ad0eb00$@gmail.com> Good morning: Good morning: What I would like to see is when an IPv6 block is offered to a client that the block be defined in at least one of two groups. Companies like GE, IBM, Wal-Mart are looking to use IPv6 addresses for RFID price tags. So these companies will have blocks from ARIN, and never intend to announce them in BGP. So let's know that all IPv6 addresses starting with D and E are non-BGP Tags; never to be announced. With over 4 billion /32 routes knowing that GE is using an IPv6 range for RFID tags would be impossible to keep track of. So Spammers and others could steal the RFID IPv6 subnets and you are now being SPAMMED by a GE Refrigerator. The change would be easy, just ask the question what are you using the IPv6 for if not routing to the Internet change the first letter. I would like to do something similar with the new range of BGP AS numbers. There we could use the 1,776,000,000 to 1,776,999,999 set aside as Private for MPLS and other services that need more than the 65000 range in the older AS range. George Morton, Ph. D. Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security Optimizing IP Enterprise Solutions 954-591-8532 Google Voice Description: little R-S-Sec The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Morris Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:12 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. I believe that the proposed changes make more sense. My two cents anyway! Scott Morris, CCIEx4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CCDE #2009::D, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIE-ER #102, CISSP, et al. CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER swm at emanon.com Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil...... On 4/18/11 3:54 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: 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 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 IPv6 Annual FeeS (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT) 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Apr 19 07:58:34 2011 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:58:34 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. In-Reply-To: <004f01cbfe86$739af900$5ad0eb00$@gmail.com> References: <4DAC9B0E.7010402@emanon.com> <004f01cbfe86$739af900$5ad0eb00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79D9910E-BB9E-4E81-9D64-784F99A7E214@istaff.org> George - This is likely a proposal for consideration of the IETF, as it implies specialized technical assignments as well as new IPv6 address ranges not presently delegated to the regional Internet registries. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN On Apr 19, 2011, at 7:39 AM, GMail Account wrote: > Good morning: > > Good morning: > > What I would like to see is when an IPv6 block is offered to a client that the block be defined in at least one of two groups. Companies like GE, IBM, Wal-Mart are looking to use IPv6 addresses for RFID price tags. > > So these companies will have blocks from ARIN, and never intend to announce them in BGP. So let?s know that all IPv6 addresses starting with D and E are non-BGP Tags; never to be announced. With over 4 billion /32 routes knowing that GE is using an IPv6 range for RFID tags would be impossible to keep track of. > > So Spammers and others could steal the RFID IPv6 subnets and you are now being SPAMMED by a GE Refrigerator. The change would be easy, just ask the question what are you using the IPv6 for if not routing to the Internet change the first letter. > > I would like to do something similar with the new range of BGP AS numbers. There we could use the 1,776,000,000 to 1,776,999,999 set aside as Private for MPLS and other services that need more than the 65000 range in the older AS range. > > George Morton, Ph. D. > Dual CCIE 18532, Router/Switch & Security > Optimizing IP Enterprise Solutions > 954-591-8532 Google Voice > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Morris > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:12 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6. > > I believe that the proposed changes make more sense. > > My two cents anyway! > > > Scott Morris, CCIEx4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, > CCDE #2009::D, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIE-ER #102, CISSP, et al. > CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER > swm at emanon.com > > Knowledge is power. > Power corrupts. > Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil...... > > On 4/18/11 3:54 PM, cja at daydream.com wrote: > 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 > > 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 > IPV6 ANNUAL FEES (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT) > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5061 bytes Desc: not available URL: