[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6 (and v6 fees)
stephen at sprunk.org
Mon Dec 6 13:01:25 EST 2004
Thus spake "Howard, W. Lee" <L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com>
>> Should we include any way for disconnected sites (which many
>> not have an
>> ASN) to get PI space? The IPv4 policy directs such sites to
>> use RFC 1918 space, but there is no equivalent (yet) in IPv6.
> 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).
IPv6 Site-Local Addresses, the analog of RFC 1918, were deprecated because
ambiguous addresses were considered technically flawed. The IPv6 WG has
proposed Unique Local Addresses which use a 40-bit random field in the
prefix to reduce or eliminate (depending on the class) the chance of
ULAs are intended to be used for internal-only communication (possibly
layered on top of PA addresses), private connections between companies, and
any other purpose that needs uniqueness but not global routability. While
ULAs appear to have consensus, a few vocal objectors wanted to see if the
RIRs would change their policies to provide PI space for these needs before
letting us proceed with ULAs.
> It was the consensus of the public when creating IPv6
> policy to enforce provider-based aggregation. As I recall,
> this was the proposal that came from the IETF, and was
> ratified by all of the RIRs through their policy processes.
> The primary obstacle to deploying IPv6, therefore, would
> be a dearth of IPv6 ISPs who can make assignments. The
> root cause, which can be inferred from your statement, is
> that there's no demand for the next generation service,
> since the current generation will last for the forseeable
OTOH, it's been asserted by many folks, including myself, that even
end-sites that wish to deploy IPv6 will not do so if they are locked into
provider-based addresses for their internal communications.
Multihoming in particular is not feasible with the existing scheme, and some
believe that this will lead to organizations using ULAs internally and
NATing at their borders into PA space. Since NAT is generally considered
evil and was supposed to be unnecessary in IPv6, the only solution is to
create allow IPv6 PI assignments.
I'll note that this proposal was solicited by an active AC member, and
several other ARIN-related folks seem to agree -- at least until the Multi6
WG comes up with something better (years if not decades away).
>> > 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.
Argh. These kinds of things really need to be kept current.
> 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
> This fee structure is effective January 1, 2005."
Okay, that's what I'd have expected anyways.
> See also http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot2004_1109.html
> "The ARIN Board of Trustees extends the current waiver of all IPv6 fees to
> all members in good standing for the period of January 1, 2005 until
> December 31, 2006. This waiver is not extended to any outstanding IPv6
> related fees that were regularly invoiced in 2004."
> Thus, if you are a subscriber member (already pay for allocations)
> or an individual member ($500, see
> http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule_new.html#annual )
> you will have two years of fees waived. This seemed like a good
> compromise based on feedback during the public policy and members
Glad to hear it.
>> ARIN's "usual and customary way" has already set the fees for
>> end-user direct assignments to be the same as for ISP
>> allocations, per section 12(D) of the 3 Aug 04 BoT meeting.
>> At these fee levels, I must question the viability of direct
>> PI assignments as a replacement for many or even most
>> potential ULA uses, which I understand to be a central
>> motivation for this policy proposal. Of course, this policy
>> is still warranted for "normal" uses of PI space in IPv6.
> 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.
$1,250/yr since the expected assignment would be /48 for nearly all sites.
Still, that's a fair chunk of change if one doesn't need global routability,
particularly compared to (free) ULA space. I do think it's reasonable to
people upgrading from PA space; it's a drop in the bucket compared to being
multihomed in the first place.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
More information about the ARIN-PPML