[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Charles Gucker]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Mike Joseph <mjoseph at google.com> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20110418/08389292/attachment.html>