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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 6 13:02:25 EST 2004


> If a site isn't connected, why would PI space be necessary?
> RFC1918 made it so that private organizations who interconnected
> would always have overlapping assignments.  Maybe there's a
> Better Practice available for IPv6, to reduce the likelihood of
> conflict (by increasing randomization).
>
For one thing, RFC1918 doesn't apply to v6.  For another, the V6WG killed
the Site Local proposal (which I think should be resurrected, but, that's
a separate issue).  The current proposal is ULA, which, for a  variety
of reasons is operationally a very bad idea in my opinion, but, meets
your criteria in your last sentence).

I think a better approach is to recognize that networks fall into 3
categories:

	1.	Connected -- need unique v6 addresses among a common namespace
		known as "the internet".

	2.	Disconnected -- might as well run their own separate registry
		and distribute another copy of the entire v6 space in whatever
		way they see fit, no need for IETF to set policy in any way.

	3.	Semi-Connected -- This is what most people are calling a
		disconnected network.  The reality is that these hosts are
		connected, directly, or, indirectly to the larger internet,
		and, as such, need unique addresses.  A simple recognition
		that these hosts are connected, but, don't want global
		reachability would allow us to allocate space to them in
		a rational manner.  I see no need for PI space for such
		hosts in an organization that doesn't otherwise qualify
		for PI space.  I'd like to see site-local resurrected for
		these sites.  Another alternative would be for these hosts
		to receive part of a PA block and simply filter at the borders.

Either way, I think ARINs involvement should be limited to category 1.

>> > All such assignments under this policy shall be subject to the same
>> > renewal criteria as v4 end-user assignments with a fee
>> structure to be
>> > set by ARIN in the usual and customary way.
>>
>> In another forum it was claimed that ARIN charged ISPs
>
> What forum?  I should join.
>
>> $100/yr for IPv6 PI allocations; looking at the fee schedule,
>> it appears that starting 1 Jan 05, the fees will be $2,500
>> plus $2,250/yr for a /32.  Anyone requesting a second
>> allocation pays $20k plus $18k/yr.  That's quite a difference
>> from $100/yr.
>
> There has been constant fee-tweakage by the Board.  The current
> combination of fees and waivers is such that an IPv4 subscriber
> pays only maintenance fees on their IPv6 allocation. You have to
> read the Board minutes to keep up, since the Fee Schedule page
> is out of date.
>
> Start with:  http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2004_1020.html
> "The ARIN Board of Trustees sets the fees for IPv6 allocations as follows:
>
> XS/Micro /48 $1,250
> Small  /32 $2,250
> Medium /30-31 $4,500
> Large  /27-29 $9,000
> X-Large /22-26 $18,000
> XX-Large /21 or greater $36,000
>
> This fee structure is effective January 1, 2005."
>
Lee, what about non-subscriber prices?

> Would ARIN staff please update
> http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule_new.html#ipv6_allocation
> appropriately?
>
Definitely.
> Arguably, you could put this proposal together with the newly
> adopted fee schedule and waiver and say that there's a two-year
> trial period; after two years, end-user sites will have to
> decide whether to pay $2,250 annually, or return their space
> and renumber into provider-assigned space.
>
Or, during that two years, we can work with the board and membership to try
and achieve a more useful fee structure for the new policies.

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/ea2985dd/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list