[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Owen DeLong]

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 <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
> _______________________________________________
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/attachments/20110418/cf49aae2/attachment.html>