[arin-discuss] IPv6 as justification for IPv4?

[Scott Leibrand]

Tim,

Thanks for bringing this up. It sounds like a real issue, which could use some policy work. Cross-posting to PPML, where such policy discussions occur. 

Scott

On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:43 AM, "Tim St. Pierre" <tim at communicatefreely.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> We are a new ISP, and we have had some interesting dilemma's getting
> started.  I'm curious to know if this is something that has affected
> others, or if I'm just in a strange situation.
> 
> We are building out an access network to reach business customers in a
> small town.  We will probably never be very big, but we like are town
> and are hoping to eventually extend our reach to most business in town. 
> When we started, we requested a /32 IPv6 from ARIN.  We had to explain
> what we were doing, and our coverage area, etc.  This seems reasonable
> and all, and eventually we got our /32.  At this point, all we had was a
> /28 IPv4 SWIP'd from an upstream, so our fees jumped from $0 to $1800
> for the year.
> 
> Now we have a running network, with real customers, and we need IPv4
> allocations, since running IPv6 only for retail Internet is a bit
> problematic.  We tried to get a /24 out of our upstream, but they are
> essentially out of address space and can't give us any.  They can't get
> any more either, because they just got taken over by a larger carrier
> that has free pools, but on a different AS.
> 
> We do have another upstream that we could connect to, but they can't
> give us anything more than a /28 either.
> 
> I applied for a /22 under the immediate need category, but I don't
> qualify, since I can really only use about 2/3 of it within 30 days.
> 
> So now I'm stuck with a customer base that has native IPv6 for everyone,
> but only a /29 IPv4 to share between 12 offices and about 200 or so
> retail WiFi users.  I have to do crazy incoming NAT nonsense to support
> my customers mail servers and VPN devices, and I'm crossing my fingers
> that the wireless users don't do something stupid and get us all
> blacklisted.
> 
> Should there be an additional policy to deal with initial allocations
> where efficient utilization of X number of IPv6 /64s would serve as
> justification for a /22 IPv4, or perhaps some other scheme that makes it
> a little easier for new ISPs.  I understand that IPv4 is constrained,
> but we aren't out of them yet, and a small ISP still needs an allocation
> to function.
> 
> Another alternative would be a new entrant policy similar to the
> immediate need clause, but with the following changes:
> -Only 50% must be used within 30 days
> -ISP must demonstrate that IPv6 has been deployed to end users
> -The same documentation of customer contracts and purchased equipment
> would still apply.
> 
> I look around and see the big incumbents with no IPv6 to speak of, yet
> they have IPv4 for every customer.  Here I am as the little startup
> trying to make a go of it, but I'm at a serious disadvantage because I
> can't get any address resources.
> 
> Am I just terribly unlucky, or is this becoming a problem for others as
> well?  I think the main issue is that upstream providers aren't able to
> hand out /24s like they used to, so showing a /23 equivalent from an
> upstream is next to impossible now.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Tim
> 
> -- 
> --
> 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.