[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Thu Apr 11 14:37:10 EDT 2013

On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim <msalim at localweb.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 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.  

Under current policy, ISPs get a IPv6 /32 as their initial allocation,
unless they specifically request a /36 instead:


> 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs
> Size
> 	• All allocations shall be made on nibble boundaries.
> 	• In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36. In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.

Are you suggesting that they should not be allowed to request 
a /36 IPv6 block at all, contrary to present policy?  If so, 
this should raised on the Public Policy mailing list (ppml) 
for further discussion.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list