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

Michael Sinatra michael+ppml at burnttofu.net
Sun Apr 7 21:06:34 EDT 2013

On 04/07/13 14:05, Paul Vixie wrote:

> i've been here nine years now and i've been looking for the avoidable
> costs or the self-creating monetary vacuum that you're talking about
> here. i havn't found them. i don't think we'd like (you, me, anybody) a
> nearly-volunteer system without the controls, outreach, and policy
> process we're all getting from the RIR system in its current form.

In many organizations, there's a perception of waste from those outside
looking in.  That's unfortunate, and frequently it's a misperception.

My goal is to provide a revenue-neutral alternative to the current
proposals on the table.  As I mentioned in my previous email, I think
we can just tweak the current fee schedule so that an IPv6 ISP
allocation of exactly a /32 allows for pricing based on the IPv4
category, rather than MAX(IPv4,IPv6) as would continue to be the case
for every other allocation in the ISP fee schedule.  This attempts to
minimize the disruption to the proposed fee schedule while fixing the
incentive issues.  It's revenue-neutral because ARIN would be holding
the /32 in reserve anyway, in order to comply with 2013-3.

I don't like discussing the fee schedule on PPML any more than anyone
else, but as an operator, I am being asked to support an
operationally-suboptimal policy as a band-aid for this one issue in the
fee schedule, and that's what's giving me heartburn right now.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list