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

Matthew Kaufman matthew at matthew.at
Sun Apr 7 01:18:33 EDT 2013

On 4/5/2013 10:27 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:12 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> Furthermore, there are no obvious solutions to this problem within the fee
>> structure domain that are fiscally responsible and sustainable for ARIN,
>> especially in the long-term.
> Hi David,
> The obvious solutions within the fee structure are:
> 1. The non-profit discount
> 2. No-fee IPv6 for IPv4 holders until IPv6 becomes dominant
> #2 solves the short-term problem of folks who won't spend money on a
> protocol that won't yet make them money while #1 addresses the
> community network need.

For those community or other non-profit networks for which that discount 
is sufficient.

In my case my legacy-numbered IPv4 network isn't getting IPv6 until IPv6 
is free or enough money is made selling the IPv4 space to create a fund 
to pay for the IPv6 fees.

But this is largely tangential to the  issue at hand, which is that at 
the very least we should be giving nothing smaller than /32 to an ISP 
that is paying for their registration. If the board can't figure out how 
to charge small ISPs a small enough fee with an allocation policy of 
no-smaller-than-/32 (which is what it should be, despite the current 
availability of /36), then maybe they're not doing their job with regard 
to encouraging IPv6 deployment... but we're not going to magically fix 
that with a change to allocation policy without breaking a lot of other 
things that could be good about IPv6 in the process.

Matthew Kaufman

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list