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

[David Farmer]

On 4/5/13 11:37 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 4/5/13 9:31 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 4/5/13 11:24 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 4/4/13 3:53 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If the lower ones go a way then, as was said no one in their right mind
>>>> would choose /36 or /40.  I can't imagine anything smaller, I just
>>>> don't
>>>> see room for more changes one the smaller side.  At least without
>>>> changing the IPv6 architecture and the /64 subnet standard, and that
>>>> would be a big enough change that a whole bunch of assumptions need to
>>>> change not just this one.
>>>
>>> I would want to see verbiage in the policy that would immediately
>>> revoke/revert it if any fee schedule changes are made. If we're going to
>>> start making policy based on the fees then we should have to rerun them
>>> through the them the PDP anytime the fees they are based on change.
>>
>> I'm not going to include that right now but I will raise that question
>> at the Barbados meeting.
>
> I see no reason to have a policy motivated strictly by fees to remain
> after fee changes that may or may not negate it, and to determine that
> it should go back through the PDP. Otherwise we're just cluttering the
> NRPM with irrelevant policy.

This would essentially be a sunset-clause, we had issues the last time 
we tried on of those.  I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't do it but 
that I want more input before I add one into this policy.

Note: we can't adopt this after Barbados it has to come back to the 
policy consultation at NANOG in June as a Recommended Draft Policy 
before it can be adopted.

-- 
================================================
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
================================================