[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
joelja at bogus.com
Sun Apr 7 13:16:30 EDT 2013
On 4/7/13 9:58 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:21 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
>> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
>> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
>> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
>> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
> I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN, adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to adopt IPv6?
The notion that legacy holders should be treated iconsistenly with
others with regard to new assignments doesn't seem very consistent with
needs based allocation. If you don't need it, don't request the resources.
> As noted before by others, I don't understand why a record has different costs based on what the record is for. The difference in fees seems to go against ARINs goal of allocating resources to the community.
> Is the overhead of an IPv6 allocation record 5x an ASN record?
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML