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

Joel Jaeggli joelja at bogus.com
Sun Apr 18 01:01:37 EDT 2010

On 04/16/2010 10:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 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.

Rxcept of course that won't last forever, and in fact isn't the case
now, e.g. there are more specific from /32s and in face autonomous
systems advertising more specifics carved out of another ASes short
prefix just like in v4.

>> 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.

There are entities that are nominally end users with /32s.

> 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?

I'd like to pay less income tax too but I don't think that's in the
cards, if the fee structure has some glaring flaw then that should be
fixed but the fact that allocating small quantities and maintaining
records has a fee associated with it should surprise no-one whose been
to the DMV.

> 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
> _______________________________________________ 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list