[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-138 IPv6 Size Category Alignment

[Charles Gucker]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:05 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> Charles,
>
> There is already an attempt to deal with this issue in Draft Policy
> ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs, in section 6.5.2.1(b), by
> optionally allowing an ISP to request a /36 if they wish to retain the
> X-small status in the IPv6 world.  This Draft Policy will be up for
> discussion at the San Jaun meeting.

Understood.    I certainly agree that if 2011-3 is adopted, this would
be amended to follow suit.    But unfortunately it does very little to
address the direct problem today.    2011-3 is attempting to rewrite a
substantial portion of IPv6 policy.    I am simply attempting to align
the current policy with practice.    If the policy is changed, I would
be all for modifying the practice.

IMO, there is little reason to intentionally leave Organizations with
whom are requesting IPv6 space in limbo.    If current policy states
that a /32 is the minimum ISP allocation, the fee structure should
follow.   Again, if policy changes, then the structure would change to
match.

> Do you object to that way of dealing with this issue?  If so, why?

As I stated above, I want to be consistence with existing policy,
nothing more.    If policy changes, as proposed in 2011-3, then this
should be modified to match, nothing more, nothing less.

> The problem I with this proposal is that sets the default billing size for
> all ISPs to the X-small size, which has the probable side effect of a
> significant impact on ARIN's revenue from fees in the long term. Where as
> the approach taken in 2011-3 allows X-small ISPs a choice between a smaller
> allocation (/36) at the lower rate or the normal /32 at the normal rate.  In
> theory this should be more or less revenue neutral for ARIN.  While not
> accidentally imposing a rate hike on X-small ISPs.

Correct.   Just keep in mind, with the critical mass, that is IPv4,
the fees borne for such services will not disappear quickly.    With
IPv6, we are suppose to be encouraging the masses who run service
providers to be independent and run their own networks.    I wonder
how many additional networks will surface if given the chance to get a
direct allocation from ARIN.    I specifically left the fee structure
in place, just matched policy with practice.

> While the fee structure itself is not really a policy issue.  There is an
> undeniable interaction between the minimum allocation size, which is a
> policy issue, and the fee structure, which is not, therefore the two issues
> can not be completely and cleanly separated.

I would leave this up to the staff review, in so much as to determine
the current customer demographic and determine the "average" member
size.

> However, if we don't to come to consensus on 2011-3 then we should probably
> deal with this as a separate issue and take up this proposal and limit it to
> this issue only.

That was my goal.   Keep it stupid simple.

charles