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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>>> 
>>> What's wrong with offering the smaller ISP something smaller than a
>>> /32 at a lower price?
>> 
>> 
>> I for one would prefer to NOT modify minimum allocation policy, if
>> for no other reason that I can do a "show ipv6" in my router and know
>> immediately that if a particular IPv6 address is within a /32
>> advertisement, then there's an ISP involved.
> 
> I understand the motivation, but then you are using the size of an address block to convey semantic meaning ("this is an ISP"). Seems like a odd combination of functions to me. Shouldn't those two things be separated and how difficult can it be to separate them? Also, is the distinction between ISP and organization that clear in all cases?
> 
This doesn't make sense, actually.  Nothing prevents an end user with a large number of sites or a large network from getting a /32.

Now, if what he's really trying to say is that any prefix longer than a /32 is an end-user or an ISP doing something less than ideal, that's actually true as things stand now, but, I think that's the only valid conclusion from prefix size with current policy.  Of course a policy change can only reduce the conclusions that can be drawn since it won't affect past allocations or assignments.

>> I'd support a fee waiver to small ISP's who have an active and
>> utilized sub- /20 of IPv4.  Ultimately, when IPv4 becomes obsolete
>> and the RIR ceases to track it, and the entire issue of who owns
>> what IPv4 block becomes nothing more than historical interest,
>> the waiver will naturally disappear.
> 
> Not a bad idea in the short term but if the small ISP screeches about paying those fees now, won't they do the same then? 
> 
More than likely, but, I do think this would be a good short term solution while we have a longer discussion about the best way to address the issue in the long run.

I will point out, however, that a fee discussion belongs on arin-discuss as fees are a member topic and not a policy topic.


Owen