[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Apr 11 16:36:28 EDT 2013
I wouldn't say regrets, but that we want to allow people to have a
smaller block with a smaller fee if that work for their business
situation. With current policy and with ARIN-2013-3 every ISP is
entitled to a /32, it would be a business choice of an ISP to select /35
or /40 with ARIN-2013-3.
On 4/11/13 15:11 , Mike A. Salim wrote:
> 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:
>> 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
>> 126.96.36.199. 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
> 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.
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-discuss