[arin-discuss] Size Categories for IPv6.

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 18, 2011, at 7:06 PM, Charles Gucker wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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