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

[Randy McAnally]

Thanks for the feedback.

I think my original question should be rephrased.. not to reduce the minimum
allocation size, but to modify pricing for ISP who obtain v4 space under the
existing v4 multi-homing policy and are currently in the 'extra-small' fee
schedule.

I don't feel it is a fair policy to bump us into 'small' fee schedule just to
obtain v6 as an ISP currently under the 'extra-small' v4 fee schedule -- at
least until we have utilized enough v4 to qualify as 'small'.

What do you guys think?

--
Randy

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Sent: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:00:26 -0700
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 /32 minimum for extra-small ISP

> On 4/13/2010 10:31, Randy McAnally wrote:
> > Why are extra-small ISP's with a /21 or /22 of v4 space forced to buy so
much v6 
> > IP space and essentially double our fees?  I know there's a rebate in effect 
> > (for now) but regardless, I'm extremely displeased with this policy.
> >
> 
> Keep in mind that there are still entities out there (like AS701) who
> will not accept anything smaller than a /32 into their routing 
> tables, so for better or for worse, a /32 is the currently the best 
> option for maximum visibility.
> 
> ~Seth
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
------- End of Original Message -------