[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

Mike A. Salim msalim at localweb.com
Thu Apr 11 16:11:18 EDT 2013

Thanks John, I stand corrected - the policy is indeed worded as you state.

Having said that, the policy as proposed for the July implementation, has left me with the impression that ARIN is having regrets about parceling out /32 blocks early on for even the smallest requests (i.e. for early adopters), and wishes they had started with /36 instead.  It being not feasible to forcibly retrieve those /32 blocks from ISPs, ARIN is saying to these early adopter X-S and XX-S ISP's:  "Hand back your /32 and renumber to a new /36 or pay a higher fee if you want to keep your /32".  Hence my comment.

Best regards

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: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] 
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:37 PM
To: Mike A. Salim
Cc: arin-discuss
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

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