[arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure

[Randy Carpenter]

With IPv4, I think there is as much of a concern for people splitting up perfectly aggregatable space into tiny pieces (which no amount of allocation policy can prevent) as there is for block fragmentation.

As John said, ARIN is doing sparse allocation, so there should be very few, if any, networks that have more than 1 allocation, unless you grow from a /36 to a /24 or something. It is the wackos that take a /24 and announce it as a 4096 separate /36s that are going to be the problem for BGP.

thanks,
-Randy

----- Original Message -----
> 
> It's not too late for the IPv6 BGP table. It's still small.
> 
> There are some choices. One is a customer splits a /32 into 16 /36
> networks
> and keeps one. ARIN does not assign the new /36 networks and the BGP
> table does not grow. If that customer needs more space later then a
> a larger block can be assigned from that space since there is room.
> 
> Or... ARIN will assign the newly free /36 networks to new customers
> just as they would from another open range. The BGP table will grow
> anyway.
> 
> I hope that customers have some idea of how much IPv6 space they need
> so lots of additional blocks are not assigned to a single customer.
> It's clear that some places need a /36 but were only able to get a
> /32,
> so now they need to split it for good reason.
> 
> ARIN fees should allow customers to afford enough space so they do
> not
> need new allocations for a long time, if ever.
> 
> IPv6 BGP tables now have over 10K routes. That will continue to grow
> as more places use IPv6. It's up to ARIN to make reasonable
> assignments
> so the table is not fragmented (too much) and become bloated like
> IPv4
> which is over 430K routes now.
> 
> --
>    Andrew Lindh
>   andrew at netplex.net
> NETPLEX 860-233-1111
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Alec Ginsberg <alec at ionity.com>:
> 
> > I'd like to echo this point.
> >
> >>> Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again!
> >
> > We already have enough table bloat with the fragmentation of IPv4.
> >
> > This is horrible that we have to make it worse, especially right
> > now
> > when it could be done the right way going into it.
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]
> > On Behalf Of Owen DeLong [owen at delong.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 5:28 PM
> > To: Joseph Conti
> > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] ipv6 fees in new fee structure
> >
> > I will point out that these are fees, not policy. The AC has no
> > role
> > in fees and they are set by fiat of the board rather than through
> > the public policy process.
> >
> > I am not thrilled with the new fee structure, either, especially
> > since it does an end-run on expectations created in the early days
> > of the LRSA.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Joseph Conti
> > <joseph at media-hosts.com<mailto:joseph at media-hosts.com>> wrote:
> >
> > As long as organisations have the option of re-numbering the
> > financial incentive on ARIN's side of the table would just result
> > in
> > inconveniencing smaller organisations. The ones who want to save
> > money and have an easy opportunity to re-number now, will do so.
> >
> > 4,096 /48's in a /36 is still a lot of space. If/when we fill that
> > properly, we can just get another /36 at that point and save money
> > between now and then.
> >
> > Sorry IPv6 BGP table, policy got in the way again!
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> > On 13-03-07 01:47 PM, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
> >
> > On 2013-03-07, at 10:43 AM, Alex Krohn
> > <alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com><mailto:alex-arin at gossamer-threads.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > it seems like 234 members who have x-small v4 and small v6 are
> > faced
> > with being charged under small when they (probably) would have been
> > just
> > as happy if their initial allocation was a /36 and thus stayed in
> > x-small.
> >
> >
> > Looked at another way, this is an additional $234K in revenue per
> > year for ARIN per year.  Not insignificant. (Yes, we're one of the
> > affected early-adopters.)
> >
> > Ian McLaughlin
> > Director of Technology
> > Dargal Interline Worldwide
> > 250-979-1161
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List
> > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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<mailto:info at arin.net> if you
> > experience
> > any issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Discuss
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List
> > (ARIN-discuss at arin.net<mailto: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.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
> 
>