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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Sun Apr 7 01:14:14 EDT 2013

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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list