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

[David Farmer]

On 4/5/13 11:07 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> a. The end result is not an increase in the number of aggregatable blocks held by the organization.
>>
>
> This is problematic. This would allow an increase in the number of non-aggregatable blocks. While I'm not 100% sure that it is possible to create such a situation, I would rather see us express the direct intent. How about:
>
> a. The resulting number of aggregate retained blocks must not increase.

Ok, I'll go with that.


>> The fundamental argument against this draft policy is that the primary problem being solved is a billing or fee structure issue and not a number resource policy issue in itself.  A significant minority of the community would prefer /32 be the sole minimum allocation size for ISPs and other LIRs, and they feel there is no need for smaller /36 or /40 allocations.  They would prefer to solve the problem with changes in the fee structure rather than contorting number resource policy to solve the problem.  However, there are to many ISPs that fit into the /32 allocation category for the fee level associated with the XX-Small category to be fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN. Furthermore, there are no obvious solutions to this problem within the fee structure domain that are fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN, especially in the long-term.
>
> I would not call this "A significant minority". Rather, I would say that a significant minority are adamant to the extent they oppose this policy. I believe the vast majority of the community would prefer to see /32 be the sole minimum, but that most are willing to accept the tradeoffs incorporated into this policy. I believe that if we had an effective way to solve the problem through fee structure changes that was acceptable to the vast majority, it would be the preferred solution. I encourage anyone who has ideas of such a solution to please make them known to the community either here or on arin-discuss.  While fees are outside of the policy process, at the point we start contorting policy to address problems with the fee structure, I certainly think it is appropriate to discuss the problems with the fee structure directly in that context.

Ok how about this then;

The fundamental argument against this draft policy is that the primary 
problem being solved is a billing or fee structure issue and not a 
number resource policy issue in itself.  A significant minority are 
adamant on this issue to the extent they oppose this policy. The 
majority of the community recognizes this issue, and would prefer /32 be 
the sole minimum allocation size for ISPs and other LIRs.  However, the 
majority are willing to accept the tradeoffs incorporated into this 
policy.  As there are too many ISPs that fit into the /32 allocation 
category for the fee level associated with the XX-Small category to be 
fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN. Furthermore, there are no 
obvious solutions to this problem within the fee structure domain that 
are fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN, especially in the 
long-term.

>> Everyone agrees making /36 or /40 allocations to ISPs seems less than ideal from a number resource policy perspective.  However, this is mitigated by ensuring that all ISPs have a /32 available to them without renumbering or additional justification and from a number resource policy perspective the selection of /36 or /40 allocations is completely voluntary.  This allows each ISPs to make the decision to select from a /32, /36 or /40 initial allocation based solely on their own internal business justifications, and eliminating structural disincentives in the fee schedule for IPv6 adoption.  This seems like the best balance available at this time of number resource policy, fiscal responsibility and sustainability for both ARIN and the ISPs that it servers.
>
> I would rather see the reservation set to a minimum of /28, personally, but /32 is better than smaller.

In the comments section there is a suggestion that /28 reservations 
should be made, that is an operational issue.  The policy issue is that 
they can get up to /32 for sure without renumbering.   So from my 
perspective, a /32 reservation is a policy imperative, /28 is a 
recommendation for operational practice.

> Is there anyone in the community that objects to a minimum /28 reservation (which is the current situation for recipients of /32s)?

I haven't heard anyone object.

> Owen
>
>


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