[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
bill at herrin.us
Thu Apr 4 16:29:03 EDT 2013
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Totally oppose the below. There's no reason why we should ever be giving an
> ISP something smaller than a /32. Fix the silly fee schedule.
> If charging $1000 instead of $500 is a disincentive (I certainly think it
> is) make the /32 be $500.
> Matthew Kaufman
> ps. Example as to why I think it is a disincentive: I run a microwave
> network linking multiple mountaintops serving the tiny needs of several
> different non-profit organizations, all paid for out of my own pocket. All
> of it is numbered out of legacy space I hold. Guess how much my wife thinks
> I should spend per year on an IPv6 allocation from ARIN so that I can add
> IPv6 to this network? I'll give you a hint: $500/year is too much.
This is yet another example why the Board should defer any non-trivial
revenue collection on IPv6 until it supersedes IPv4 as the primary
protocol in use on the Internet. They'll figure it out eventually and
when they do they'll quit making choices which needlessly stall IPv6
I mean really, there are so many things stalling IPv6 deployment that
we can't do anything about. Why gratuitously stall it even more with
fees that the economics of the situation don't support?
Se la vie. Today, the battle we can win is getting IPv6, *any* IPv6,
into the hands of ISPs who are willing to do it if it doesn't change
their ARIN costs. The board isn't willing to set the IPv6 fees for
every ISP holding an IPv6 /32 at $500, but they'll apparently accept
making a smaller allocation to an ISP for $500. For that reason, I'd
encourage you to support the proposal.
Let's just make sure they can convert to a /32 later without renumbering.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML