<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Here here! This is the most reasonable suggestion I have heard as well.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">
<br><br>"<br>This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a
great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller
than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does
potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior.<br>"<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>--<br>Brian</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM, Randy Carpenter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rcarpen@network1.net" target="_blank">rcarpen@network1.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I've been reading all of the discussion about the fee schedule and proposal 2013-3.<br>
<br>
This is the first suggestion that makes sense to me. I think it is a great detriment to the deployment of IPv6 to hand out anything smaller than /32 to ISPs. I also think that the proposed fee schedule does potentially have an unintended side-effect of encouraging bad behavior.<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: This potentially would affect my company and my customers. Although, I do not have any problem at all paying (or suggesting to my ISP customers that they should be paying) the rates set forth by the pending fee schedule. I would always choose a /32 for an ISP, as that is the proper thing to do.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
-Randy<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> Currently there is a discussion going on over on ppml@ regarding policy<br>
> 2013-3, which is largely being driven by an incentive issue with ARIN's<br>
> proposed fee schedule. Specifically, the proposed fee schedule allows<br>
> for very small ISPs to fit in the "XX-small" category. However, the<br>
> current minimum allocation for an ISP is a /36 (with a /32 being the<br>
> "standard" allocation), which does not allow a very small ISP to fit in<br>
> the XX-small category.<br>
><br>
> See the tables here for more info:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/fees/pending_fee_schedule.html</a><br>
><br>
> Because of this, concern has been expressed that this creates a<br>
> disincentive for small ISPs to adopt IPv6. A policy proposal (2013-3)<br>
> has been developed that allows small ISPs to receive allocations as<br>
> small as /40s, while still reserving indefinitely a /32 for the ISP,<br>
> some or all of which the ISP can request at any time and without<br>
> justification.<br>
><br>
> However, there are some operational issues that arise from this use of<br>
> number policy to patch an issue with the fee schedule; these issues have<br>
> been discussed at length on PPML, and I refer the reader to the archive<br>
> of that discussion. Briefly summarized:<br>
><br>
> o It results in a messy addressing plan, where the ISP is forced to fit<br>
> into a small corner of the potential space it has available to it.<br>
> This, in turn leads to two consequences:<br>
><br>
> o Customers will receive sub-standard reassignments as the ISP becomes<br>
> increasingly parsimonious with address space.<br>
> o As the allocation grows toward the /32 boundary, it becomes less<br>
> likely that the ISP will be able to have internally aggregable routing,<br>
> and this may make it more likely that the ISP won't re-aggregate its<br>
> space as it increases the size of its allocation over time, *even* if<br>
> that space is from a single aggregable /32.<br>
><br>
> I'd like to propose a tweak to the proposed fee schedule as follows:<br>
><br>
> "ISPs which have IPv4 resources and an IPv6 allocation of exactly /32<br>
> will have their fees calculated from the fee schedule based only on<br>
> their IPv4 allocation. All allocation sizes other than IPv6 /32 will be<br>
> calculated from the fee schedule based on the greater of their IPv4 or<br>
> IPv6 allocation."<br>
><br>
> This only affects ISPs whose IPv4 allocations are in the X-small or<br>
> XX-small range *and* who have a /32 allocation. ISPs and end sites with<br>
> allocations/assignments in the small or greater category will still pay<br>
> the greater of their IPv4/IPv6 allocation-category fee.<br>
><br>
> It's revenue-neutral with respect to the pending fee schedule, combined<br>
> with proposal 2013-3 because that proposal calls for the reservation of<br>
> the /32 for that ISP anyway. I believe this tweak still allows for a<br>
> sustainable revenue model for ARIN until such a time as ARIN ceases to<br>
> provide IPv4 services, at which point the fee schedule will likely need<br>
> to be revisited anyway.<br>
><br>
> I am interested in this community's thought on this tweak. I realize<br>
> the fee schedule is always a contentious issue, and I am reluctant to<br>
> get into a general discussion of fees (for more general discussions,<br>
> please create a separate thread). However, I would like to know if<br>
> there are specific issues or incentive problems with what I am proposing.<br>
><br>
> Note also that I have no stake in this issue; this fee tweak would not<br>
> impact myself nor my current or previous employers.<br>
><br>
> Michael Sinatra<br>
> Energy Sciences Network<br>
> LBNL/DOE Office of Science<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> ARIN-Discuss<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-Discuss<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>