[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

Mike A. Salim msalim at localweb.com
Thu Apr 11 11:43:01 EDT 2013


I am in agreement with Michael Sinatra's tweak.  This seems to be a fair and balanced suggestion and only affects X-S and XX-S ISPs and who also have a /32 IPv6 allocation.  There is no affect for ISPs who are S or larger, nor for ISPs who are X-S or XX-S and have a /36 IPv6 allocation or no IPv6 allocation.

On the topic of /32 vs /36, I do not understand why a /32 should not be the smallest allocation that ARIN carves out.  This is a very convenient size that readily allows ISPs to aggregate and accommodate IPv4 addressing.  A /32 still allows for up to 4 billion allocations.  Is there a chance that we will need more than 4 billion allocations any time soon (e.g. more than 4 billion ISPs wanting allocations)?  If so, how about reserving or setting aside some portion to carve into /36 if we ever need to, and only allocating /32 for now.


A. Michael Salim
VP and Chief Technology Officer,
American Data Technology, Inc.
PO Box 12892
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
P: (919)544-4101 x101
F: (919)544-5345
E: msalim at localweb.com
W: http://www.localweb.com

PRIVACY NOTIFICATION:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Sinatra
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:18 AM
To: arin-discuss
Subject: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule


Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's proposed fee schedule.  Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category.  However, the current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in the XX-small category.

See the tables here for more info:


Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6.  A policy proposal (2013-3) has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP, some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without justification.

However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive of that discussion.  Briefly summarized:

o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it.
This, in turn leads to two consequences:

o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes increasingly parsimonious with address space.
o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing, and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if that space is from a single aggregable /32.

I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows:

"ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32 will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on their IPv4 allocation.  All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or
IPv6 allocation."

This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation.  ISPs and end sites with allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee.

It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of the /32 for that ISP anyway.  I believe this tweak still allows for a sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need to be revisited anyway.

I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak.  I realize the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions, please create a separate thread).  However, I would like to know if there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing.

Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not impact myself nor my current or previous employers.

Michael Sinatra
Energy Sciences Network
LBNL/DOE Office of Science
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list