[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
matthew at matthew.at
Sun Apr 7 16:29:29 EDT 2013
On 4/7/2013 4:21 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Matthew -
> The current fee schedule reads as follows:
> IPV6 ANNUAL FEES (NOTE: FEE WAIVERS IN EFFECT), EFFECTIVE UNTIL 30 JUNE 2013
> Size Category Fee (US Dollars) Block Size
> Small $2,250 /40 to /32
> Medium $4,500 /31 to /30
> There is 25% IPv6 fee waiver in effect (this started out at 100% and
> was to be phased out over the last 4 years, although it was extended
> at the 25% discount level for this year to carry us into the Revised
> Fee schedule.)
> So, any ISP using IPv6 under _today's_ fee schedule has a minimum annual
> fee of $1687 per year [$2250 * 75%] and that covers an allocation up to
> /32 of IPv6. Unless we continue with the Revised Fee schedule, this is
> effectively a minimum annual cost for any ISP making use of IPv6.
> If we want to lower that cost of using IPv6 for smaller organizations,
> we need to find some manner to distinguish these smaller ISPs from all
> ISPs, and this is typically done through the total address block holdings.
I believe that way is not appropriate for the post-IPv4 world. No ISP
should be getting smaller than /32.
If you want to lower the cost of IPv6 for smaller organizations, you're
free to do so, but tying to how much IPv6 space they have is likely to
result in a very large number in the smallest category. And whether or
not that's a problem *isn't a NRPM issue*.
> At this point, ARIN can sustain some number of smaller ISPs having lower
> fees, and the Revised Fee schedule supports an ISP with no more than /20
> of IPv4 space and /36 of IPv6 being categorized as "x-small" with annual
> fees of $1000/year. This category makes IPv6 more approachable for these
> ISPs but it is indeed at the downside of a smaller IPv6 allocation.
That shouldn't be happening. No reason an ISP should be getting a /36
instead of a /32, just encourages bad behavior.
> you are aware, /36 of IPv6 space would provide for more than 4000 /48
> and _lots_ of /56 assignments (but there would be less in practice due
> to internal hierarchy in assignment management.)
Yes. So /36 is *barely* what it takes to remind an ISP that they
shouldn't be treating IPv6 like a scarce commodity. Maybe. But /32 would
be a lot safer, and so that's what *numbering policy* should be doing.
> Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3, combined with the Revised Fee schedule as
> corrected, would continue this approach of allowing very small ISPs
> with no more than /22 of IPv4 to obtain a corresponding IPv6 allocation
> of /40 and have annual fees of $500 year in the "xx-small" category.
The draft policy is bad numbering policy, and the fee schedule will
provide an incentive for organizations to use the provisions of that bad
numbering policy. Don't support.
> The downside that you assert with Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3 is that
> "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."
> Given that any ISP qualifying as xx-small (even with wildly aggressive
> NAT) has no more 1024 customers each with a single IPv4 address, and the
> /40 IPv6 allocation would provide them with the ability to make 65K /56
> assignments to these same customers, it does seem somewhat strange that
> "false conservation" of those 65 thousand potential assignments would
> drive xx-small ISPs to instead make /64 IPv6 customer assignments.
Lets ignore IPv4 entirely for a moment... or pretend that in the near
future people might single-home IPv4 with PA addresses but want their
IPv6 to be PI space... In such a situation, organizations will choose to
pack themselves and their customers into too little IPv6 space just to
save a buck. I don't think that should be happening.
> The community can indicate that it does not support ARIN-2013-3 if the
> resulting "false conservation" is a problem, and then there will be no use
> of the xx-small/$500/yr fee category.
The community on *this* mailing list should be debating what is best
numbering policy, and not considering the tempting fruit of this week's
fee schedule (subject to change without community input at any time).
> Under the Revised Fee schedule, these
> ISPs would be paying at least $1000/year based on a /36 IPv6 allocation
> (which is still better than today's fees with IPv6 use as noted above.)
> It would be good to hear from ISPs who would qualify for the xx-small
> $500/year category about the resulting temptation that it poses for
> making smaller IPv6 customer assignments (and how they feel safer with
> the /36 IPv6 minimum and corresponding $1000/year annual fee), as they
> are the ones who are most affected by the outcome of this draft policy
It would be good to hear from small ISPs that are deploying IPv6 at all,
but that's a whole separate problem.
More information about the ARIN-PPML