[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

Thu Apr 11 13:51:50 EDT 2013

Famous last words...

Jesse Geddis
LA Broadband LLC

On 4/11/13 8:48 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net> wrote:

>I think if we get beyond 4 billion ISPs in the world, we are going to
>have other problems much more important that address space.
>
>-Tim
>
>On 13-04-11 11:43 AM, Mike A. Salim 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.  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.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>
>-- 
>--
>Tim St. Pierre
>System Operator
>Communicate Freely
>289 225 1220 x5101
>tim at communicatefreely.net
>www.communicatefreely.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.