[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6 (and v6 fees)

[Owen DeLong]

--On Monday, December 6, 2004 1:03 PM -0600 Stephen Sprunk 
<stephen at sprunk.org> wrote:

> Thus spake "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
>> > In a significant portion of these cases, they may be connected
>> > to "an internet" but not the Internet.  An internet is two or more
>> > networks under separate authority which connect to each other.
>>
>> If any of the member networks on "an internet" is connected to "The
>> internet", then, they fall into category 1.  If not, then, it's category
>> 2 and not an ARIN issue.
>>
>> (Just my opinion, but, I think that works generally)
>
> Categorizing semi-connected networks separately makes sense because their
> addressing needs do not include global routability; policies (or
> standards work) relating to that category may be different than for
> fully-connected networks.
>
>From an ARIN perspective, uniqueness is all that matters.  ARIN does not
guarantee routability.  I believe that a semi-connected network, for ARIN
purposes, should qualify just like a connected network.  The fact that their
routes do not need to appear in the global routing table is a convenience
and benefit for the operational community, but, not really an issue for 
ARIN.

>> > C.  In case an assignment policy is ever established, the Board passed
>> > a motion setting initial fees to be the same as allocations, with
>> > maintenance fees consistent with other maintenance fees (currently
>> > $100):
>> > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2004_0803.html item 12D.
>>
>> Right... That's what I'm hoping for in terms of ASSIGNMENT or NON-
>> SUBSCRIBER policy.  Stephen, does that address your fee concerns?
>
> If I'm understanding the terms correctly, this will mean that end sites
> will pay only $100/yr.  That seems perfectly acceptable for multihoming
> purposes and probably even semi-connected networks (though this policy
> doesn't apply to the latter).
>
$100/yr, exactly correct.  As to semi-connected, it may or may not.
Depends on the nature of their "semi-connection".

> I'm initial fee still seems steep based on the lower level of review
> needed under this policy, but I doubt I'd have trouble convincing mgmt to
> pay it. Not an issue.
>
And, it might be possible to reduce that somewhat, too.

>> Heck... Based on the above, it looks like if we get this policy
>> implemented,
>> the [fee] structure is already there.
>
> Indeed.  Once ARIN gets around to putting this information in the fee
> schedule, everything's fine on this front.
>
Cool... I suspect that will happen before the policy comes out of the AC. 
:-)

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20041206/94a00dfb/attachment.sig>