[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[John Curran]

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:

<https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html>

> 6.5.2. Initial allocation to LIRs
> 
> 6.5.2.1. 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.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN