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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Dec 6 13:28:14 EST 2004


> 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.
>
I don't think "a few vocal objectors" is an accurate characterization of the
discussion on PPML and/or NANOG that ensued the announcement of ULA to the
operational community.

> 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.
>
I would argue that under the current structure, a lot of end-sites will
not deploy IPv6 if they are locked into provider-based addresses for their
external connectivity either.

> 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.
>
Others believe, as I do, that it will lead instead to companies pressuring
their ISPs to route their ULAs globally and not NAT at their borders to
PA space.

> 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).
>
Exactly.

>> XS/Micro /48 $1,250
> ...
>> This fee structure is effective January 1, 2005."
>
> Okay, that's what I'd have expected anyways.
>
Note:  This is strictly an ALLOCATION fee as there is no ASSIGNMENT fee
structure in v6 ARIN policy since there is no v6 ASSIGNMENT policy for
ARIN.  ARIN's current v6 policy is strictly directed at ALLOCATION to ISPs,
so, you would have to compare that to the pricing for v4 /22 Allocations,
not v4 /22 assignments.  If you look at the ARIN pricing for ALL v4 
assignments,
it's $100/year regardless of what you have (ASN, v4 IPs, etc.).

> 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.
>
That's not entirely true.  I could be multihomed for around $200/month.
$1,250 is not a drop in the bucket compared to $2,400.  Especially not
when it's in addition to the $2,400.  However, most end-sites would not
need v6 allocations, they would need v6 assignments.  If ARIN adopts
similar pricing for v6 assignments to what is there for v4 assignments,
then, I think you will find it quite reasonable.  Organizations that
don't require global routability probably won't be looking for
allocations.  They'll probably want assignments.  ~$2,500 initial and
$100/year doesn't seem horrible for that purpose.

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/20041206/40ccd174/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list