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

[cb.list6]

On Apr 6, 2013 10:14 PM, "Matthew Kaufman" <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>
> On 4/6/2013 12:00 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote:
>>
>> On 03/27/13 17:45, David Farmer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/27/13 18:00 , Michael Sinatra wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or, to put more bluntly, if ARIN's fee structure is itself creating
>>>> disincentives for proper IPv6 adoption, then let's go back and (re-)fix
>>>> that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Oppose 2013-3.
>>>
>>> Michael and others opposed,
>>>
>>> What about modifying the proposal to /40, require a minimum reservation
>>> of /32 (or maybe /28) be held for ISPs that elect for /40 or /36
>>> allocations, allow subsequent allocations to expansion from /40 to /36
>>> and then to /32 without evaluating there current IPv6 usage.  Thereby
>>> ensuring they can grow their allocation in place and allowing policy
>>> flexibility that enables the fee structure equity that the new xx-small
>>> category seems to provided.
>>
>> Sorry to be responding to an earlier part of the thread, but I was on
>> vacation and lost track of this thread, and you did ask me a direct
>> question.  I owe you the courtesy of an answer.
>>
>> The answer to your question is no.  If I start out with a /40 or /36 and
>> then rapidly grow into a /32 (and can justify the fees), then I am going
>> to end up with a largely organic addressing plan.  We're giving
>> incentives for people to cram all of their addressing into a corner of
>> the total space that they should be using and it will create a really
>> messy IPv6 deployment.
>
>
> Worse, we're creating a messy IPv6 situation downstream... as Owen points
out, this type of financial pressure towards false conservation is going to
give us things like /64-per-household instead of something sensible that
lets the thermostat be on a different subnet than the Xbox.
>
> We should be telling ISPs of all sizes "IPv6 is huge... come get a /32 or
bigger... do sensible things when you make your addressing plans... do
sensible things when you sell service to your customers" and not "here's a
way to save a buck by pretending IPv6 is like IPv4"
>
> You're right (in the part below that I deleted)... the bug is the fee
structure and there's absolutely no reason to try to muck with the policy,
which can't possibly fix the real problem.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>

Generally speaking we need to move away from conservation as goal for both
ipv4 and ipv6

Structurally there is no need in v6 and the market will force it in v4

conservation at the rir level creates costly externalities in routing and
other areas such as system design.

Ripe is on the right track
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-03

CB.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/3e9861b3/attachment.htm>