[arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 4/13/2010 11:25 AM, Randy McAnally wrote:
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt<tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 11:02:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP
>
>> The assumption has always been that if your an extra-small ISP that
>> you obtain IP addressing from your LIR  (ie: upstream ISP)
>
> ARIN made us give back that IP space to qualify for multihoming policy.

I think your mistaken or your situation had some other issues your
not explaining.  My employer, Internet Partners, ran multihomed
with upstream-assigned IPv4 for close to a decade.  I'm not familiar 
with any requirement to use ARIN-assigned IPv4 in order to multihome,
can you point me to this in the NRPM?

> So
> now when we need IP space we have to go direct to ARIN, thus we have a /22 and
> a /21 and still qualify for extra-small pricing.  Try asking your upstream for
> IPs when you already have direct assignments... it's not going to happen.
>

Why would your upstream withhold IPv6 allocations when you have IPv4 
assignments from ARIN?

I can understand your upstream withholding IPv4 allocations when you
already have IPv4 allocations from ARIN.  But, not IPv6.

> Furthermore, my gripe IS NOT WITH PRICING PER IP.
>
> It is the fact that big multi-homed ISP can request a v6 allocation and see no
> increase in fees (they pay only the bigger of the two, obviously their v4
> space), yet a smaller multi-homed ISP requests v6 and doubles their yearly
> fees because a /32 is the minimum.
>
> I thought ARIN was encouraging the adoption of v6 for everyone, not just big
> ISPs.
>

Yes and no.  Yes ARIN is encouraging adoption of IPv6 for everyone.  No,
ARIN is NOT encouraging everyone in the region to obtain IPv6 FROM THEM.

The idea behind IPv6 assignment is that most orgs should only need to 
request a single IPv6 allocation then never have to go back for more.
This is radically different than assignments for IPv4 where the goal is
to miser-out the IPv4 in dribs and drabs.  It is a much better system
because when the IPv4 is handed out in little bits it inflates the DFZ -
do you not realize for example that your advertisement of a separate /22
and /21 costs ME and everyone else MORE router ram than if you had 
returned your /22 and /21 and renumbered into a /20?  Thus, the IPv6
assignments are ENORMOUS if your just comparing IP number to IP number
from IPv4 to IPv6.  There really IS NO coorespondence between an "extra
small IPv4" allocation and an "extra small IPv6 allocation" because
such a thing (extra-small IPv6 allocation) does not exist.

The fact is that because of this approach, the "extra small" ISPs are
going to be in this situation that your in.  One of these days IPv4
is going to be worthless and then your going to have to either decide
to pay more money and get your own IPv6 from ARIN or pay your upstream
for an assignment out of it's IPv6.  But you have to keep in mind that
since your upstream will have a vast amount of IPv6, that they should
have no problems with giving you as much as you want, and further that
renumbering under IPv6 is much easier than under IPv4.

Now, granted, your upstream may not be running IPv6 at this time.  Well
to put it bluntly, it helps the IPv6 deployment more if you go to your
upstream and crawl up their butt until they get IPv6, than if you just
ignore them and get IPv6 for your corner of the Internet.

I've seen posts from orgs where the network guys were ready and wanted
to deploy IPv6 and the pointy-haired bosses didn't, because the
pointy-haired bosses never talked to a customer who asked about it,
thus assumed that it's not important.  If your a customer of such an
upstream, you might consider bothering the pointy haired bosses who
you are paying good money to for connectivity.

In summary I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you want to hear
but just try to keep the big picture in mind.  If we can't get those
large orgs to deploy IPv6 then there's no point in you and I bothering
with it, now is there?

Ted

> --
> Randy
> www.FastServ.com
>