[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] x-small IPv4 ISPs going to IPv6

[David Farmer]

NOC at ChangeIP.com wrote:
>> x-small IPv4 providers as such,
>> constitute about 1/4 of the total ARIN ISP constituency.
> 
> So 1/4 of the current IPv4 ARIN community will have to pay something to 
> get IPv6... which will hinder IPv6 rollout in my opinion.  If we truly 
> want people to transition now we need to make their initial small ipv6 
> allocation at no additional cost if they are already paying for x-small 
> ipv4.
> 
> "6.4.3. Minimum Allocation
> The minimum allocation size for IPv6 address space is /32."
> 
> which is $2,250/yr, more than the $1,250/yr that they are currently 
> paying. The x-small ipv6 allocation on the fee schedule is misleading 
> since you can't even get it.
> 
> Don't start with the $1,000/yr is nothing; its the cost of a PC for an 
> employee argument... it all comes back to do you really want IPv6 
> rollout to succeed or not.  I personally am holding out on ISP v6 block 
> because I don't want the extra cost.  I can't get anything from my 
> upstreams (level3, cogent) because ipv6 isn't available thru them.

So as I see it there are two ways to go here, ask the BOT for a fee 
wavier or some kind of pricing change for a /32.  Or alternatively we 
could go in the direction of a policy change allowing an ISP or LIR the 
option to elect to receive something smaller than a /32, like a /40 or 
maybe a /36 and then ask the BOT to designate that size prefix as x-small.

If we wanted to go in the policy change direction adding something like 
the following paragraph to the current 6.5.1.2, or to 6.5.1.1 if 2010-4 
makes it through last call, could work;

"Organizations may opt to receive a smaller /36 initial allocation if 
they wish. In this case the allocation will receive a reservation for 
growth of at least a /32. Such reservations are not guaranteed and ARIN, 
at its discretion, may assign them to other organizations at any time."

There might need to be some tweaks in other areas too, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure I really like this idea, but I think some kind of policy 
change might be a more constructive way to deal with this issue than 
another discussion of a fee wavier or how ARIN spends the budget.

I'm not trying to say the budget isn't important, but maybe that arguing 
about the budget might not the way to handle a problem for almost 1/4 of 
the ISP organizations.  Maybe if we provide the BOT a policy to work 
with they can probably handle the financial implications.

 From Owen's data, (Thank you, I for one found it useful that someone 
(else) dug that up those numbers)

866 X-small ISPs / 3562 total ISPs = 24.3%

That is not a small enough fraction that I think it is a good idea to 
ignore this issue, and it is large enough that maybe a policy change is 
the right direction to deal with the issue.

Are there other better policy approaches to this problem?

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================