[ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4

[Lee Howard]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Mury Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 4:54 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Last Call for Comment: Policy Proposal 2003-4
> 
> but I don't think the policy proposal in
> it's current form is going to do a whole lot to encourage the 
> adoption of IPv6.

It is not clear to me that the public has instructed ARIN to
encourage the adoption of IPv6.  My interpretation is that ARIN
should be making IPv6 available, but not advocating.

> If this policy proposal is adopted can it at least be done in 
> conjunction with a significant fee waiver?  Say... the first 1000 
> ARIN->LIR blocks are free for four years...  The fees have already 
> been waived 2-3 times over the last four years.  The fear that ARIN 
> is going to lose out on this big pot of money is unfounded.

Would you, as an ISP, make a significant commitment to IPv6 if you
knew it was "No payments until Memorial Day 2008?"  I will confess
to a certain fear as Treasurer that IPv6 will skyrocket one year,
and our costs will skyrocket proportionately, and the public and/or
the members will scream when we finally begin collecting the fees
that have been waived for so long.

> Or, how about every current customer that is already paying 
> ARIN fees for IPv4 can get a free IPv6 block?

That is the current policy. IPv6 is free (fee is waived) for new
users, and:

	IPv6 fees will not be charged to organizations that are 
	current ARIN IPv4 subscription holders.

http://www.arin.net/registration/fee_schedule.html#ipv6_allocation

It's either free or it's free.  

> Everyone is comfortable in their IPv4 world.  There have been numerous
> arguments that the technology will be developed and then the 
> demand will come.  That hasn't happened either.  How many years need
to 
> go by before people are going to be willing to acknowledge that IPv6
needs 
> a good kick in the ass in ARINland?
> 
> People have lost their tolerance for being the front runners 
> in hopes of cornering market share.  The majority of LIRs are going 
> to wait until moving to IPv6 is either risk-free or until everyone
else 
> is doing it and they need to.
> 
> Put a little meat back into this policy change, or combine it with a
> *real* waiver of fees. Just my thoughts...

It seems to me that the problem is not on the supply side, but the
demand side.  Making it freer isn't going to make anybody want it 
more.  If I'm wrong, and a few ISPs will say, "The only thing keeping
me from deploying IPv6 is the fees I'll see next year" I'd 
discuss it with the Finance Committee and the Board.  Since IPv6 is
waived for IPv4 subscribers, that's a small constituency, though.

Final note for us as we evaluate the comments received during Last
Call:  Should we interpret your comments as meaning you do not support
policy proposal 2003-4 as currently written?

Thanks,
Lee Howard
Treasurer, Board Member, Coffee Drinker


 
> Mury
> 
> > Quoting Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net>:
> >
> > > This is a last call for comment on this policy proposal.
> > >
> > > The Advisory Council has determined that there was 
> community support
> > > for this policy proposal. The AC will review the comments 
> collected
> > > during this last call period.
> > >
> > > Please send your comments to ppml at arin.net.  This last call will
> > > expire at 23:59 EST on June 4, 2004.
> > >
> > > Member Services
> > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> > >
> > >
> > > #######################################
> > >
> > >
> > > Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes
> > >
> > > Author: ARIN Advisory Council
> > >
> > > Policy term: permanent
> > >
> > > Policy statement:
> > >
> > > A. 5.1.1(d), which currently reads: "d) have a plan for making at
> > > least 200 /48 assignments to other organizations within two years"
> > > will have the timeframe changed from "two years" to "five years".
> > >
> > > B. 5.1.1(d) will have prepended "be an existing, known ISP in the
> > > ARIN region or..."
> > >
> > > Rationale:
> > >
> > > These changes to the initial allocation criteria are to 
> acknowledge
> > > the slow pace of IPv6 deployment in the ARIN region. Also 
> they further
> > > stress the availability of IPv6 allocations to existing service
> > > providers in the ARIN region.
> > >
> > > The following is section 5.1.1 as it currently is in the ARIN IPv6
> > > Address Allocation and Assignment Policy document:
> > >
> > > 5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
> > >
> > > To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an
> > > organization must:
> > >
> > > a) be an LIR;
> > >
> > > b) not be an end site;
> > >
> > > c) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organizations to 
> which it will
> > > assign /48s, by advertising that connectivity through its single
> > > aggregated address allocation; and
> > >
> > > d) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other
> > > organizations within two years.
> > >
> > > The ARIN IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy is 
> available
> > > here:
> > >
> > > http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
> > >
> > > Timetable for implementation: 30 days after ratification
> > >
> > > !DSPAM:40acf6a089461161118278!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>