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

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Fri Apr 16 12:48:46 EDT 2010

> -----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?

> And it's unnecessary.  IPv6 does not use the economics of a
> scarce resource, like IPv4 does.  We have plenty of it.

For now. If we continue to waste billions of addresses in order to perform an unrelated identification function, maybe not after a decade or so. 

> 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 information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list