[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[cja@daydream.com]

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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20110418/7463178a/attachment.html>