[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[Owen DeLong]

I would remove the word Parital from 6.12(d).

I would remove "perhaps" from ...perhaps even reserving a block as large as..." and replace it with "ideally".

Explanation of part 2 s/meet/met/ in "...generic requirements that should be meet [sic] for such..."

Owen

On Apr 4, 2013, at 10:15 , David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> Here is the update that I propose to submit tomorrow to meet the publication deadline for the Barbados meeting.  I believe it accurately reflects the changes discussed so for.  Any comments are appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ---
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3
> Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
> 
> Date: 4 April 2013
> 
> Problem Statement:
> 
> ARIN's fee structure provides a graduated system wherein organizations pay based on the amount of number resources they consume.
> 
> At the very bottom end of the scale, it is presently not possible to be an XX-Small ISP with an IPv6 allocation because the minimum allocation size of /36 automatically promotes one into Small ISP status, resulting in a doubling of annual fees.
> 
> While tiny in absolute terms, the extra costs incurred represent a disincentive to IPv6 deployment.
> 
> To the author's knowledge, it has never been possible for an LIR/ISP to get a /40 allocation direct from ARIN; assignments of /40s have been limited to organizations that qualify as end sites or critical infrastructure.  It is understood there is an expected correction of the xx-small fee category to "/40 or smaller".
> 
> Policy statement:
> 
> Part 1: In subsection 6.5.2. Initial Allocation Size, insert "or /40" at the end of the first sentence of subsection 6.5.2.1 clause (b), and add a new clause (g), resulting in;
> 
> b. In no case shall an LIR receive smaller than a /32 unless they specifically request a /36 or /40.  In no case shall an ISP receive more than a /16 initial allocation.
> 
> ...
> 
> g. An LIR that requests a smaller /36 or /40 allocation is entitled to expand the allocation to /32 or /36 at any time without additional justification.  Such expansions are not considered subsequent allocations.  However, any expansions beyond /32 are considered subsequent allocations, and must conform to section 6.5.3.
> 
> Part 2: Add a new subsection to section 6 "IPv6";
> 
> 6.12 Reduction or Return
> 
> ARIN will accept the return of whole or partial block(s) allowing an organization to reduce their holdings as long as:
> 
> a. The end result is not an increase in the number of non-contiguous blocks held by the organization.
> 
> b. Whole blocks are returned to the extent practicable.
> 
> c. Partial block(s) retained must conform to applicable policies, as to size, alignment, etc…
> 
> d. Partial block(s) retained are within a single reserved space or aggregate set aside for the organization in the ARIN database to the extent practicable.
> 
> e. All returned block(s) must not be in use by the organization or its customers.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> The author acknowledges the shortcomings of providing an ISP with an allocation of a size that is more traditionally associated with end sites. In order to avoid possible bad effects on the routing table, the author encourages ARIN staff to adopt the same sparse allocation practice as currently exists for larger allocations, perhaps even reserving a block as large as the /28 that is reserved for /32s.  Note the policy intent of part 1 requires a minimum of a /32 be reserved.
> 
> Part 1 brings ARIN's allocation policies in line with the upcoming fee schedule, with the addition of an expected correction of the xx-small fee category to "/40 or smaller".  This makes it possible to qualify for each ISP fee category while holding IPv6 number resources and allows expansion up to /32 without justification as a subsequent allocation as driven by an ISP's business demands.
> 
> Part 2 codifies and expands upon current practice for selective return in the manner described by John Curran on the arin-discuss mailing list (7-Mar-2013 in 8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3748F9239EA at CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net ) It specifies the generic requirements that should be meet for such returns.
> 
> A more practical approach might to figure out a way to apply graduated fees to ISPs at the very small end of the scale using some metric other than prefix size. Fee schedules are outside of the purview of the Policy Development Process; such responsibility lies with the Board should they choose to take it up.
> 
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> 
> 
> -- 
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.