[arin-discuss] tweak to proposed fee schedule

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 11 20:15:58 EDT 2013

On Apr 11, 2013, at 11:37 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> 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
>> 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.

If you take out the fee incentive to do so, I think the policy issue is largely moot.


> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-discuss mailing list