[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

[David Farmer]

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
> 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: 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:
>
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>


-- 
================================================
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
================================================