[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
owen at delong.com
Thu Apr 4 17:40:49 EDT 2013
On Apr 4, 2013, at 2:28 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 1:52 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>> On 4/4/13 14:46 , Matthew Kaufman 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.
>> Current policy already allows /36s to be handed out, this adds /40s to that, and allow you to change it to /32 as you see fit.
> Well, that's a bug too. But certainly I don't think we should be handing out /40s to ISPs. Probably not /36s either. How about /32s only, and up to /16 with justification?
>>> If charging $1000 instead of $500 is a disincentive (I certainly think
>>> it is) make the /32 be $500.
>> I assume you didn't support the original version of the draft with /48s either, and your not opposed to the changes to the draft, but the policy intent overall. Or, is there something about the changes from the original draft that you oppose.
> Policy proposal as it stands exists only because of a bug in the fee schedule. No ISP in their right mind would request a /40 instead of a /36 (say) just because they can, given that initial allocation justification is identical. Except for the fee schedule of course.
>>> 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.
>> The last paragraph of the comments basically says that it would be better to have a different solution for the fee schedule, but that is out of scope of the PDP.
> I know it is. But this whole proposal is about working around the fee schedule instead of fixing the root problem (that some ISPs think the price for a /32 is too high and so incorrectly wish to get something smaller)
>> I'd be interested in talking with you about finding a way to meet such needs.
> You know where to find me :)
> Matthew Kaufman
> 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